MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155208034 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00177614

Occupational exposures and fluorescent oxidation products in 723 adults of the EGEA study

2015· letter· en· W2155208034 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Orianne Dumas, Régis Matran, Farid Zerimech, Brigitte Decoster, Hélène Huyvaert, Ismaïl Ahmed, Nicole Le Moual, Rachel Nadif

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEtablissement Français du SangAgence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire de l'Environnement et du TravailAstraZenecaAgence Nationale de la RechercheMcGill UniversityMerckFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsOccupational asthmaMedicineAsthmaEnvironmental healthEpidemiologyPopulationOccupational exposureOccupational medicineImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational asthma can be induced by a variety of agents, including high and low molecular weight sensitisers, and respiratory irritants [1]. The role of exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants in work-related asthma is increasingly recognised, although the specific substances that increase asthma risk are not well identified [2]. Some of the numerous agents contained in these products are chemical sensitisers, but most are hypothesised to act as respiratory irritants [2]. While high molecular weight sensitisers are known to cause occupational asthma through a typical allergic response, the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in occupational asthma induced by low molecular weight (LMW) chemicals, and in irritant-induced asthma, remain poorly understood [1, 3, 4]. Associations between occupational exposures to asthmogenic chemicals and irritants and oxidative stress were found <http://ow.ly/K6RSt> The authors thank all those who participated in the study and in the various aspects of the examinations and all those who supervised the study centres. The authors are grateful to the three CIC-Inserm units at Necker, Grenoble and Marseille (France), which supported the study and where subjects were examined. They are also grateful to the three biobanks in Lille (CIC Inserm), Evry (Centre National de Genotypage) and Annemasse (Etablissement Français du Sang; France) where biological samples are stored. The authors thank Sylwester Karpiel (INSERM U1018, Centre for research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, Villejuif, France) for his contribution to this work. They are indebted to all the individuals who participated, without whom the study would not have been possible. The EGEA cooperative group are as follows. Coordination: V. Siroux (epidemiology, PI since 2013); F. Demenais (genetics); I. Pin (clinical aspects); R. Nadif (biology); F. Kauffmann (PI 1992–2012). Respiratory epidemiology: Inserm U 700, Paris: M. Korobaeff (Egea1) and F. Neukirch (Egea1); Inserm U 707, Paris: I. Annesi-Maesano (Egea1–2); Inserm CESP/U 1018, Villejuif: F. Kauffmann, N. Le Moual, R. Nadif, MP. Oryszczyn (Egea1–2) and R. Varraso; Inserm U 823, Grenoble: V. Siroux. Genetics: Inserm U 393, Paris: J. Feingold; Inserm U 946, Paris: E. Bouzigon, F. Demenais and M.H. Dizier; CNG, Evry: I. Gut (now CNAG, Barcelona, Spain) and M. Lathrop (now McGill University, Montreal, Canada). Clinical centres: Grenoble: I. Pin and C. Pison; Lyon: D. Ecochard (Egea1), F. Gormand and Y. Pacheco; Marseille: D. Charpin (Egea1) and D. Vervloet (Egea1–2); Montpellier: J. Bousquet; Paris Cochin: A. Lockhart (Egea1) and R. Matran (now in Lille); Paris Necker: E. Paty (Egea1–2) and P. Scheinmann (Egea1–2); Paris-Trousseau: A. Grimfeld (Egea1–2) and J. Just. Data and quality management: Inserm ex-U155 (Egea1): J. Hochez; Inserm CESP/U 1018, Villejuif: N. Le Moual; Inserm ex-U780: C. Ravault (Egea1–2); Inserm ex- U794: N. Chateigner (Egea1–2); Grenoble: J. Quentin-Ferran (Egea1–2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207