Frequency of work‐related respiratory symptoms in workers without asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians are faced with subjects complaining of work-related respiratory symptoms (WRS) without any evidence of asthma. We sought to assess the prevalence of subjects with WRS without asthma in a cohort of workers referred for possible work-related asthma (WRA) as well as compare the characteristics and the work environment of subjects with WRS to subjects with WRA. METHODS: A prospective observational study of workers referred for possible WRA over a 1-year period. Detailed medical and occupational questionnaires were administered. Pulmonary function tests as well as specific-inhalation challenges were performed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty workers were investigated. Fifty-one had WRA while 69 had WRS. The type and the severity of the respiratory symptoms were similar in both groups, except for wheezing which was more frequently reported in subjects with WRA (32 (62.7%)) than in subjects with WRS (16 (23.2%)) (P < 0.01). Both the workers with WRS and WRA were mainly employed in the manufacturing sector (64.7% (WRA) and 71% (WRS)). At the time of the first assessment 64.7% of subjects with WRA and 56.5% with WRS had left their workplace because of their bothersome respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with WRS without asthma represent a large proportion of the subjects assessed in clinics specialized in the field of WRA. Like subjects with WRA, the population with WRS is likely to represent a significant medical burden. The similarity of the symptoms between the WRA and the WRS groups emphasizes the need to perform a thorough and objective investigation to diagnose WRA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".