Work-associated irritable larynx syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-associated respiratory symptoms may be caused by disorders of both the lower and upper respiratory tract. We propose that occupational exposures may initiate and/or trigger recurrent hyperkinetic laryngeal symptoms, predominantly episodic dyspnoea, dysphonia, cough and sensation of tension in the throat-work-associated irritable larynx syndrome (WILS). AIMS: To examine characteristics of individual and work-related factors that are associated with WILS, occupational asthma (OA) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA). METHODS: Subjects with WILS, OA and WEA were identified from an occupational lung disease clinic. A review of 448 charts of patients attending the clinic between 2002 and 2006 was undertaken, with information entered onto a standardized abstraction form. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were identified with OA, 40 with WEA and 30 with WILS. Subjects with the diagnosis of WILS were more likely to be female and more frequently reported symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux. The most common triggers of workplace symptoms in the WILS group were odours, fumes, perfumes and cleaning agents. Fourteen patients with WILS identified a specific precipitating event at the workplace at the time of the onset of their symptoms and five of these subjects presented to an emergency department within 24 h of the event. CONCLUSIONS: Dysfunction of the upper airway is an important cause of work-associated respiratory symptoms. The identification and management of WILS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a focus on modifying work-related and intrinsic factors that may perpetuate symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".