Host determinants for the development of allergy in apprentices exposed to laboratory animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether determinants of work-related symptoms, skin sensitization and diseases differ between atopic and nonatopic subjects starting a career with exposure to laboratory animals (LA). A cohort of 417 apprentices in animal-health technology was prospectively followed during 32 or 44 months. The effect on the study outcomes of variables derived from questionnaire, skin reactivity, and lung function assessments at baseline were compared in atopic (n=212) and nonatopic (n=183) subjects. Eighty-five incident cases of sensitization to a LA-derived allergen were identified, 67 among atopic and 18 among nonatopic subjects. Baseline rhinitis symptoms in contact with pets and skin sensitization to pets were associated with the development of work-related rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) symptoms in atopic subjects, whereas perannual rhinitis symptoms and having a PC20 (provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second) < or = 32 mg x mL(-1) were associated in nonatopic subjects. Baseline rhinitis symptoms on contact with pets and a PC20 value < or = 32 mg x mL(-1) were significant determinants for developing sensitization to a specific allergen in atopic subjects only. Finally, baseline rhinitis symptoms in contact with pets and perannual rhinitis symptoms were associated with the development of occupational RC in atopic subjects, whereas in nonatopic subjects this was associated with having a PC20 value < or = 32 mg x mL(-1). In conclusion, the determinants for the development of specific skin sensitization, symptoms and disease are different between atopic and nonatopic apprentices starting occupational exposure to laboratory-animal-derived allergens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".