Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Function in Poultry Confinement Workers in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether poultry production methods impact respiratory health, and whether poultry farmers have more respiratory symptoms and lower lung function than comparison control groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba during the winters of 1997 to 1999. POPULATION: Three hundred three poultry workers, 241 grain farmers and 206 nonfarming control subjects were studied. Poultry workers were further classified according to the poultry housing type in which they worked, ie, workers who worked with poultry raised on the floor (floor-based operations), which included broiler/roaster, broiler/breeder and turkey operations (n=181), and workers who worked with poultry raised in a caged setting (cage-based operations), which included egg operations (n=122). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects completed a respiratory health questionnaire, which included questions on the poultry operation and work habits, and participated in lung function testing. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, this study indicated that poultry workers report greater prevalences of current and chronic respiratory symptoms than control populations, and that the type of production method (cage-based versus floor-based) appears to influence the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and lung function values. Workers from cage-based operations report greater prevalences of current cough and wheeze, as well as lower mean values for forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of vital capacity (FEF25-75) and FEV1/FVC than workers from floor-based facilities. Workers from cage-based facilities also reported greater prevalences of current and chronic cough and phlegm, as well as significantly lower FEF25-75 and FEV1/FVC values than nonfarming control subjects. Furthermore, grain farmers had lower FVC and FEV1 values than nonfarmers. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the type of poultry production system (ie, floor- versus cage-based) appears to have an effect on the respiratory response of workers from these facilities. Further studies are required to understand the physiological mechanisms of respiratory dysfunction and the relationships concerning workplace exposure among poultry workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".