932 Work exposures and their relationship to the development of osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Osteoarthritis (OA) ranks among the top ten causes of disability worldwide. Of increasing interest are occupational factors that contribute to the development of OA or aggravate its trajectory. This systematic review synthesised evidence for the relationship between work exposures and the development of OA to inform work disability prevention messaging and decision making and to identify future knowledge needs. Methods We implemented the systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work and Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. Four electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2015. Articles that described the impact of work on OA were included in the review and examined knees, hips, spine, wrist, hands, or fingers, shoulder, ankle, foot, or toes, neck, elbow. Result The search yielded 3379 non-duplicate references with 67 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Study designs included cross-sectional surveys (n=22), case-control studies (n=22), prospective cohorts (n=14), and retrospective cohorts (n=9). 96% of studies measured OA using reliable and valid measures. Measurement of work exposures was more variable with 33% (n=28) of studies not well described and 18% (n=12) using instruments with questionable or unknown reliability and validity. There was strong or moderate evidence of an increased risk for developing OA in hips or knees for several occupational tasks (e.g., lifting/load bearing activities, full body vibration, kneeling/bending/squatting) and for not having an increased risk of OA for walking, sitting, driving, climbing. Dose response data were highly variable and could not be synthesised for recommendations. Discussion This systematic review highlights that strong evidence exists for occupational risks and the development of OA in some joints, like knees and hips. However, data on complex job tasks (e.g., bending and lifting simultaneously) and dose response information are lacking. This is essential information going forward for prevention and early intervention efforts.
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 | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".