Repeated Occupational Exposure to Low-level Blast in the Canadian Armed Forces: Effects on Hearing, Balance, and Ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, there has been increasing concern about the adverse health effects of long-term occupational exposure to low-level blast in military personnel. Occupational blast exposure occurs routinely in garrison through use of armaments and controlled blast detonations. In the current study, we focused on a population of breaching instructors and range staff. Breaching is a tactical technique that is used to gain entry into closed spaces, often through the use of explosives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Initial measurements of blast overpressure collected during breaching courses found that up to 10% of the blasts for range staff and up to 32% of the blasts for instructors exceeded the recommended 3 psi exposure limit. Using a cross-sectional design, we used tests of balance, ataxia, and hearing to compare a sample of breachers (n = 19) to age-and sex-matched military controls (n = 19). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups on the balance and ataxia tests, although the average scores of both groups were lower than would be expected in a normative population. The prevalence of hearing loss was low in the breacher group (4 of 19), and hearing thresholds were not significantly different from the controls. However, the prevalence of self-reported tinnitus was significantly higher in the breacher group (12 of 19) compared with the controls (4 of 19), and all breachers who were identified as having hearing loss also reported tinnitus. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that basic tests of balance, ataxia, and hearing on their own were not sensitive to the effects of long-term occupational exposure to low-level blast. Some of the blast exposure levels exceeded limits, and there was a significant association of exposure with tinnitus. Future studies should supplement with additional information including exposure history and functional hearing assessments. These findings should be considered in the design of future acute and longitudinal studies of low-level blast exposure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".