MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163826385 · doi:10.1515/reveh-2020-0174

Investigating the field effectiveness of respirators against metal particle exposure in various workplaces: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3163826385 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews on Environmental Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsRespiratorCINAHLWeb of scienceScopusMEDLINEMedicineToxicologyMaterials scienceMeta-analysisNursingChemistryPsychological interventionInternal medicineBiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Welders are exposed to high levels of metal fumes, which could be resulting in various health impairments. Respirators became a practical protective option in workplaces, as they are lightweight and easy to use. This systematic review attempts to explore the field effectiveness of using respirators to reduce metal particle exposure in workplaces. We reviewed papers published from 1900 to April 2019 in five major bibliographic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL, along with organizational websites to cover gray literature. In total, 983 references were identified from the databases, out of which, 520 duplicates were removed from the EndNote database. The remaining 463 references were screened for their title and abstract. Out of 463, 70 references went through the full-text screening. Finally, eight papers, including 19 workplace respirator studies, satisfied all the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this report. The geometric means for metal levels in workers’ breathing zone with and without respirators were 9.4 and 1,777 µg/m 3 for iron, 1.1 and 139 µg/m 3 for lead, 2.1 and 242 µg/m 3 for zinc, and 27 and 1,398 µg/m 3 for manganese oxide, respectively. Most reviewed studies reported significant differences between measured metal particle levels among workers who worn respirators and who did not. In addition, results showed that N95 provided significantly less protection than elastomeric half facepieces, full-face respirators, and powered air-purifying respirators (p<0.001). More field studies are recommended to investigate Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) and fit factor (FF) of different respirators to understand the actual protection levels that they could be provided to control welding fume exposure among welders in various workplaces.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · 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