Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To address the following question: in the management of occupational asthma does current evidence support complete avoidance of further exposure to the causative agent, or is reduction in exposure sufficient to control asthma and less likely to result in loss of income or job loss? RECENT FINDINGS: A recently published Cochrane review of workplace interventions in the management of occupational asthma compared complete removal from exposure to the causative agent with reduction of exposure and continued exposure. Results suggested that complete removal from exposure resulted in the best outcome in terms of symptoms, lung function, and airway hyper-responsiveness. Reduction of exposure appeared to be less effective in terms of improving asthma but was also less likely to result in loss of income or unemployment. A second systematic review reported similar results. SUMMARY: There is no single solution to the question about ongoing workplace exposure for an individual with occupational asthma. There are good reasons for removing an individual from exposure in terms of clinical improvement, but this may have consequences in terms of income and employment. It is necessary to consider all these aspects when advising patients if their health is to be maximized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".