The relationship between toluene diisocyanate exposure and respiratory health problems: A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human epidemiological studies have shown inconclusive results over the effects of diisocyanates on respiratory health problems. A meta-analysis combined evidence on the association between occupational asthma (OA), respiratory function, and toluene diisocyanate (TDI) inhalation exposure. Sixty-one articles on occupational toluene diisocyanate exposure were identified via two databases. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies. Odds ratios (OR asthma ) for the association between TDI exposure compared to non-exposure and OA were calculated. The difference in mean differences (MD) of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) and forced vital capacity (FVC), and the annual mean change differences—in milliliters per year (mL/yr)—in FEV 1 and FVC pulmonary function between TDI exposed and non-exposed, were calculated. When applicable, a random effects meta-analysis was performed. The overall summary OR asthma for TDI exposed versus non-exposed was 1.18 (95% CI = 0.78–1.79). The summary of the predicted mean percentage difference (MD %predicted ) between exposed versus non-exposed was 2.96% for FEV 1 and 3.75% for FVC. A very small decrease of 5 mL/yr for FEV 1 and 10 mL/yr for FVC, respectively, was observed between the exposed and the non-exposed groups. There was moderate to low heterogeneity between study results, and most studies were evaluated as high-quality. This meta-analysis found no statistically significant adverse association between TDI occupational exposure and OA. No meaningful differences in lung function were detected between exposed and unexposed groups.
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 | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".