MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613404589 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000998

Diagnosed Chronic Health Conditions Among Injured Workers With Permanent Impairments and the General Population

2017· article· en· W2613404589 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Casey, Peri J. Ballantyne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)HeadachesOccupational safety and healthLogistic regressionPopulationMigrainePhysical therapyEnvironmental healthGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To profile chronic health conditions of an injured worker sample before and after workplace injury and compare injured workers to a matched community sample. METHODS: Logistic regression analyses compared risk of certain chronic health conditions for permanently disabled injured workers in the pre- and post-injury periods to comparator subsamples from the Canadian Community Health Surveys 2003 and 2009/2010. RESULTS: There were notable health differences between the injured worker and comparator samples for the post-injury period. Injured men and women were more likely to report arthritis, hypertension, ulcers, depression, and back problems than the comparator sample. Injured women were also more likely to report migraine headaches and asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences suggest that permanently impaired injured workers experience more rapidly accelerated health declines than other aging workers, and this outcome is gendered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207