Do respiratory symptoms predict job choices in teenagers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing guidelines advise adolescents with asthma and allergies against high-risk occupations. The aim of the current authors' analyses was to investigate the resulting self-selection in a prospective cohort study. The participants of Phase II of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood in Germany (aged 9-11 yrs at baseline) were re-contacted after 7 yrs (response rate was 77%) and were asked to complete a questionnaire, which included items on atopic diseases. The subjects were also asked about the type of job they would like to have in the future (preferred job choice). Exposure to agents with potential asthma risk was evaluated using a job exposure matrix. The analyses were restricted to those in school-based vocational training programmes without occupational exposures. A total of 33% of subjects chose jobs with high asthma risk, 23% selected low asthma risk jobs and the remaining adolescents indicated jobs without known asthma risk (reference category). There were no statistically significant associations between asthma, allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis and selecting jobs with asthma risk. Participants with allergic rhinitis tended to select high risk jobs less frequently. In conclusion, self-selection into low risk jobs seems to play a minor role in teenagers with asthma or allergies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".