Total Dust and Endotoxin in Poultry Operations: Comparison Between Cage and Floor Housing and Respiratory Effects in Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess respiratory outcomes and environmental exposure levels of workers in cage-housed and floor-housed poultry operations. METHODS: Poultry operations were evaluated for total dust, endotoxin, and ammonia, and respiratory symptoms and lung function tests of workers were conducted. RESULTS: Workers in floor-housed poultry operations had significantly greater exposures to total dust and ammonia, whereas workers from cage-housed poultry operations reported greater frequency of current and chronic symptoms overall and significantly greater current and chronic phlegm (39% vs 18% and 40% vs 11%, respectively). Endotoxin concentration (EU/mg) was a significant predictor (P = 0.05) of chronic phlegm for all poultry workers. CONCLUSIONS: Greater endotoxin concentration in the presence of significantly lower total dust, in conjunction with greater respiratory symptoms in workers from cage-housed poultry operations, as compared with workers from floor-housed poultry operations, appears to indicate that differences in environmental exposures may impact respiratory outcomes of workers.
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 | 0.000 | 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".