Smoking habits and occupational disability: a cohort study of 14 483 construction workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although smoking causes a variety of diseases and both, a high smoking prevalence and permanent occupational disability are a great burden on the population level, data about the impact of smoking habits on occupational disability are sparse. The objective of this study was to examine the influence of smoking habits on occupational disability among construction workers, an occupational group with particularly high smoking prevalence. METHODS: The association between smoking and occupational disability was examined during a mean follow-up of 10.8 years in a cohort of 14,483 male construction workers in Württemberg, Germany. The cohort was linked to the regional pension register of the German pension fund to identify workers who were granted a disability pension during the follow-up. HRs (Hazard Ratios) were calculated with non-smokers as reference by the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for potential confounding factors such as age, nationality, type of occupation, alcohol consumption and body mass index. RESULTS: Overall, 2643 cases of occupational disability were observed, with dorsopathy (21%) being the most common cause. Clear dose-response relationships were seen between smoking and occupational disability due to all causes, as well as occupational disability due to respiratory, cardiovascular and mental diseases, cancer and dorsopathy. Particularly strong associations were seen between heavy smoking (> or =20 cigarettes/day) and occupational disability due to mental and respiratory diseases (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.46 and HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.27, respectively). CONCLUSION: Smoking is associated with increased risk of occupational disability among construction workers, in particular occupational disability due to respiratory, cardiovascular and mental diseases, cancer and dorsopathy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".