Faculty Opinions recommendation of Snow crab allergy and asthma among Greenlandic workers--a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study snow crab sensitization, occupational allergy and asthma in the snow crab industry in Greenland, as high rates have been found in Canada, but no reports have emerged from the same industry in Greenland.STUDY DESIGN: Pilot survey.METHODS: Twenty workers (19 of Inuit and 1 of other origin) in a snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) and Atlantic shrimp (Pandalus borealis) processing plant in Greenland were assessed with skin prick tests (SPTs) with common aeroallergens and specific allergens from snow crab and shrimp extracts, spirometry, blood sampling for total IgE and specific IgE determination. Eighteen workers contributed a questionnaire-based medical interview.RESULTS: Positive skin prick test reactions were common to snow crab (40%) and shrimp (20%). Specific IgE to snow crab were positive in 4 workers (21%). Two workers had elevated total IgE levels. Symptoms suggestive of asthma were common (45%). Work-related symptoms of skin rash, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis were reported by 50%, and symptoms from the lower airways by 39%. Combining history of work-related symptoms with results from specific SPTs and/or specific IgE determination suggested that 11 and 22% of workers suffered from probable and possible occupational asthma, respectively, whereas 22% had possible occupational dermatitis or rhinitis.CONCLUSIONS: Greenlander Inuit do not appear to be protected against sensitization to snow crab or shrimp when occupationally exposed to these. This pilot study suggests that occupational allergy and asthma may be as common a problem in Greenlandic workers as in Canadian. PMID: 22901288 Funding information This work was supported by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: CDA 66154
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".