Controversies in epidemiology of occupational asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiology is the study of the distribution, determinants and outcome of disease. In this article, the recently acquired knowledge of the epidemiology of occupational asthma is described, as well as current areas of controversy. Incidence figures obtained from field studies in high-risk workplaces, medicolegal statistics and sentinel programmes indicate that approximately 10% of adult-onset asthma is attributable to the workplace. The strategy to identify cases through questionnaires and tools that address functional, immunological and physiopathological issues needs to be improved. Although few in number and limited to a handful of workplaces, cohort studies found that the risk of developing occupational asthma is determined less by individual susceptibility (e.g. atopy, tobacco smoking, human leukocyte antigen phenotype) and more by the level of exposure to its causes; in general, the higher the exposure, the greater the risk, and, by implication, lowering the level of exposure reduces the incidence of disease. Occupational asthma can be used as a satisfactory model for the development of adult-onset asthma. There is a great need to develop intervention strategies through adequate surveillance programmes in high-risk workplaces.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".