Occupational exposures and exacerbations of asthma and COPD—A general population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent studies suggest that occupational inhalant exposures trigger exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but findings are conflicting. METHODS: We included 7,768 individuals with self-reported asthma (n = 3,215) and/or spirometric airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/ forced expiratory volume (FVC) <0.70) (n = 5,275) who participated in The Copenhagen City Heart Study or The Copenhagen General Population Study from 2001-2016. Occupational exposure was assigned by linking job codes with job exposure matrices, and exacerbations were defined by register data on oral corticosteroid treatment, emergency care unit assessment or hospital admission. Associations between occupational inhalant exposure each year of follow-up and exacerbation were assessed by Cox regression with time varying exposure and age as the underlying time scale. RESULTS: Participants were followed for a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, IQR 5.4), during which 870 exacerbations occurred. Exacerbations were not associated with any of the selected exposures (high molecular weight sensitizers, low molecular weight sensitizers, irritants or low and high levels of mineral dust, biological dust, gases & fumes or the composite variable vapours, gases, dusts or fumes). Hazards ratios ranged from 0.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.7;1.0) to 1.2 (95% confidence interval: 0.9;1.7). CONCLUSION: Exacerbations of obstructive airway disease were not associated with occupational inhalant exposures assigned by a job exposure matrix. Further studies with alternative exposure assessment are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".