Natural rubber latex‐related occupational asthma: Association with interventions and glove changes over time*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to natural rubber latex (NRL) has been recognized as a cause of occupational asthma (OA), especially among health care workers (HCWs) associated with use of gloves. Little or no population-based data are available which chart the changes over time in the number of cases of OA as this problem was increasingly recognized and then interventions instituted. METHODS: We obtained the numbers of allowed asthma claims with exposure to latex by year in the province of Ontario, Canada from the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board; details of the cases from the largest teaching hospital were reviewed. Interventions included: (1) in 1996, the Board recommended in its focus for accommodation of sensitized workers, the reduction of aerosols of latex proteins and that hospital facilities use powder-free, low-protein or nonlatex gloves; and (2) hospitals instituted latex policies and glove changes at various dates. For example, at the largest teaching hospital, interventions included education and voluntary medical surveillance in 1994; substitution of low protein, "powder-free" NRL gloves for non-sterile powdered gloves in 1995; and replacement of powdered sterile NRL gloves by lower protein, "powder-free" NRL gloves in 1997. RESULTS: Through 1999, there were 60 allowed claims for asthma in Ontario with exposure to latex; of these 49 (82%) were among HCWs. The number of claims among HCWs changed from 0 to 2 per year up to 1990; increased to 7 to 11 per year between 1991-1994; and declined to 3 per year in 1995-1996 and 1 to 2 per year in 1997-1999. Of the ten institutions having two or more OA latex claims, all claims occurred in 1996 or earlier at 8 (80%). At the largest hospital, there were five accepted claims with year of diagnosis in 1993 (1 case), 1994 (3 cases), and 1995 (1 case). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, despite the effect of increasing recognition, the introduction of gloves with reduced powder and/or protein, as well as other interventions have been associated temporally with declines in the number of cases of latex OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".