Occupational exposure as a risk factor for cognitive impairment in Vietnamese nail salon workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Nail salon technicians are continuously exposed to neurotoxic and carcinogenic properties in nail products that may put them at risk for central nervous system impairments linked to Alzheimer’s disease. However, there are very few studies of the nail‐care workplace, and even fewer focus on Vietnamese female nail technicians, who make up the overwhelming part of the workforce. This study provides preliminary data on clinical assessments that will inform the cognitive functioning of a vulnerable population. Method Sample includes 300 Vietnamese females aged 50 or above in Northern California. The nail‐technician group (n=155) self‐identified as a current or former full or part‐time nail technician. The non‐nail group (n=145) are those who have never worked in the cosmetic industry, including nail or hair salons, but were an approximate match with the nail technicians on demographics and acculturation variables. Participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D), and a self‐reported bilingual survey regarding their occupational exposure and demographics. Result The average MoCA score was 18.8 (SD ±4.50) for non‐nail technicians, which is significantly higher than 17.60 (SD ±4.30) for nail technicians (p = 0.017). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the average CES‐D score (p = 0.22). Based on results of multiple linear regression, with an increase of 100 in exposure index (i.e., years working in current nail salon x hours worked per week), the MoCA score is expected to decrease by 0.29 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.53, p = 0.017). Conclusion After adjusting for potential confounders, Vietnamese nail technicians were found to have lower cognitive functioning that those without occupational exposure to nail salon work. The results of this study suggest the need for future longitudinal research to better elucidate the processes underlying this association.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".