MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908517440 · doi:10.1289/isee.2016.3043

Worker’s health in the greenhouse environment: a systematic review of exposure to organophosphate and carbamate pesticides

2016· review· en· W2908517440 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travailUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthExposure assessmentMedicineConfoundingEpidemiologyPesticideSystematic reviewToxicologyMEDLINEBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Greenhouse agriculture is a challenging working environment where conditions such as containment, absence of weather elements, high humidity and heat can influence pesticide persistence and workers’ exposure. Organophosphate (OP) and carbamate (CB) pesticides have been particularly associated with disorders of the nervous, endocrine and respiratory systems. This literature review assesses the epidemiological evidence of health effects in greenhouse workers exposed to OP and CB pesticides and identifies research gaps and needs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Pubmed and Web of Science. The search was limited to epidemiological studies on health outcomes with exposure assessment, published in English or French. Descriptive studies, exposure assessment only or method validation articles were excluded. Results: Twenty two articles met the selection criteria. Of those, 3 were longitudinal (5-11 years), 5 had a pre-post exposure design, and 14 were cross-sectional. Plasmatic esterases inhibition or neurological deficits were the outcome in 10 of the studies. Exposure was assessed with urinary metabolites in 4 studies and with a detailed work history in 14. One third of the papers did not control for any confounding variables in the statistical analyses. Only one study reported environmental parameters (temperature). Conclusions: Several research gaps were identified. Exposure assessment methods often lacked precision or were not always chosen according to the outcome of interest, especially when evaluating health effects resulting from long term exposure. There was a lot of heterogeneity in outcome measurements as well. Potential confounding and risk factors, such as past acute poisoning, spouse occupation, and co-exposures, need to be addressed more carefully. Finally, greenhouse environment parameters that may influence workers’ exposure (temperature, ventilation, humidity, use of protective equipment) should be thoroughly recorded.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.234 · 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