Long-Term Socioprofessional and Psychological Status in Workers Investigated for Occupational Asthma in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term status of workers with occupational asthma (OA) with those of subjects with work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) and nonasthmatic (NA) workers. METHODS: We contacted 179 subjects investigated for suspected OA at Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from 1997 to 2007. Participants completed questionnaires on psychological and functional status, followed by a telephone interview about socioprofessional outcomes and health care utilization. RESULTS: The OA workers are more likely to have been removed from the workplace than the WEA workers. The health-related quality of life of all workers was still impaired. A high prevalence of psychiatric disorders was found among OA and WEA workers. Compared with WEA and OA workers, the NA group showed a higher rate of physician consultations for all causes. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the diagnosis they received, these workers need to benefit from psychosocial support in the period after investigation for suspicion of 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".