Incidence of probable occupational asthma and changes in airway calibre and responsiveness in apprentice welders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of cross-sectional studies have shown a higher prevalence of ventilatory impairment in welders while only few longitudinal studies were able to detect chronic effects on spirometry or bronchial responsiveness. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of probable occupational asthma (OA), bronchial obstruction and hyperresponsiveness among 286 students entering an apprenticeship programme in the welding profession. This epidemiological prospective cohort study consisted of a baseline assessment survey and two follow-up assessments. A respiratory symptom questionnaire was administered at each visit. Spirometry and methacholine bronchial challenge test results, conducted once prior to onset of exposure and later after an average of 15 months of apprenticeship, were available for 194 subjects. The incidence of probable OA was approximately 3% (6 of 194). The incidence of bronchial hyperresponsiveness, defined as a > or = 3.2-fold decrease in the provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in the forced expiratory volume in one second from baseline to the end of the study was 11.9%. A statistically significant difference was found between the baseline and end of study for the lung function values. In particular, the forced expiratory volume per cent predicted had significantly dropped by 8.4% on average. The significance of these early pulmonary function changes in relation to possible chronic effects of exposure to welding fumes and gases remains to be explored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".