Occupational asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The scientific literature on occupational asthma is steadily increasing and no longer only describes case reports with prevalence figures and limited physiopathologic and immunologic data. Prospective cohort studies are currently carried out with relevant incidence figures and risk factors. Genetic susceptibility is explored. New diagnostic means are described. Surveillance programs are conducted and preventive measures are proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: A relevant account was published on the respiratory consequences (irritant-induced asthma, a type of occupational asthma) of exposure of firefighters at the World Trade Center site. Glutathione-S-transferase appears to be an interesting susceptibility gene for occupational asthma as a result of isocyanates. Inflammation caused by neutrophils and not only by eosinophils is more often associated with occupational asthma. Examination of induced sputum and assessment of exhaled nitric oxide are becoming useful diagnostic tools. Cleaners are at increased risk of developing occupational asthma, although the causal agents are unknown. Surveillance programs currently combine strategies that aim to reduce exposure and identify cases early. SUMMARY: New scientific information provides better, accurate figures on the frequency of occupational asthma and on risk factors, proposes relevant diagnostic tools more directly related to the physiopathology of the disease, and suggests effective surveillance programs in high-risk 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.016 |
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".