MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775251256 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001124

Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Analyses of Lung Function in Toluene Diisocyanate Production Workers

2017· article· en· W2775251256 on OpenAlexaff
Meilin Wang, Eileen Storey, Laura D. Cassidy, Brent Doney, Patrick R. Conner, James J. Collins, Michael Carson, Don Molenaar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsStan Cassidy Foundation
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSpirometryVital capacityMedicineToluene diisocyanateCohortPulmonary function testingLung functionCohort studyLongitudinal studyPopulationCross-sectional studyAdverse effectEnvironmental healthInternal medicineLungAsthmaDiffusing capacityPathologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate lung function among toluene diisocyanate (TDI) production workers. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven U.S workers performed spirometry from 2006 through 2012. Results were compared within the study cohort and with U.S. population measures. A mixed-effects model assessed factors affecting repeated forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measurements. RESULTS: The cohort's mean FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) percent reference values, although greater than 90%, were significantly lower and the prevalence of abnormal spirometry (predominantly restrictive pattern) was significantly higher than in the U.S. POPULATION: Differences in lung function among workers with higher cumulative TDI exposure were in the direction of an exposure effect, but not significant. CONCLUSION: We found little evidence of an adverse effect of TDI exposure on longitudinal spirometry in these workers. The association between TDI exposure and the increasing prevalence of a restrictive pattern needs further exploration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207