Occupational use of high-level disinfectants and asthma incidence in early- to mid-career female nurses: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Occupational use of disinfectants among healthcare workers has been associated with asthma. However, most studies are cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies are not entirely consistent. To limit the healthy worker effect, it is important to conduct studies among early- to mid-career workers. We investigated the prospective association between use of disinfectants and asthma incidence in a large cohort of early- to mid-career female nurses. METHODS: The Nurses' Health Study 3 is an ongoing, prospective, internet-based cohort of female nurses in the USA and Canada (2010-present). Analyses included 17 280 participants without a history of asthma at study entry (mean age: 34 years) and who had completed ≥1 follow-up questionnaire (sent every 6 months). Occupational use of high-level disinfectants (HLDs) was evaluated by questionnaire. We examined the association between HLD use and asthma development, adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, smoking status and body mass index. RESULTS: During 67 392 person-years of follow-up, 391 nurses reported incident clinician-diagnosed asthma. Compared with nurses who reported ≤5 years of HLD use (89%), those with >5 years of HLD use (11%) had increased risk of incident asthma (adjusted HR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.04 to 1.86)). The risk of incident asthma was elevated but not statistically significant in those reporting >5 years of HLD use and current use of ≥2 products (1.72 (0.88 to 3.34)); asthma risk was significantly elevated in women with >5 years of HLD use but no current use (1.46 (1.00 to 2.12)). CONCLUSIONS: Occupational use of HLDs was prospectively associated with increased asthma incidence in early- to mid-career nurses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".