Ergonomic demands and fetal loss in women in welding and electrical trades: A Canadian cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between ergonomic demands of the job at conception and fetal loss (miscarriage or stillbirth). METHODS: Women with a welding or electrical trade apprenticeship were identified across Canada for the Women's Health in Apprenticeship Trades-Metal and Electrical study. They completed a reproductive and employment history at recruitment and every 6 months for up to 5 years to provide details on pregnancies and work demands. Job at conception was identified and fetal loss examined in relation to ergonomic exposures/demands, allowing for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 885 women were recruited; 447 in welding and 438 in electrical trades. Of these, 574 reported at least one pregnancy. Analysis of 756 pregnancies since the woman started in her trade suggested no increased risk of fetal loss in those choosing welding rather than electrical work. Among 506 pregnancies conceived during a period working in a trade, 148 (29.2%) ended in fetal loss: 31.2% (73/234) in welding, and 27.6% (75/272) in electrical work. Detailed exposure information was available for 59% (299/506) of these pregnancies. In welders, the risk of fetal loss was increased with whole-body vibration (prevalence ratio [PR] = 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-3.31) and hand-arm vibration for > 1 hour/day (PR = 2.15; 95% CI 1.33-3.49). In electrical workers risk increased with more than 8 days working without a rest day (PR = 2.29; 95% CI 1.25-4.17). Local exhaust ventilation reduced risk in welders. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant increase in fetal loss in welding trades compared to electrical work. Vibration, largely from grinding, and extended work rotations appear to be potentially modifiable factors of some importance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".