Ever and cumulative occupational exposure and lung function decline in longitudinal population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Adverse occupational exposures can accelerate age-related lung function decline. Some longitudinal population-based studies have investigated this association. This study aims to examine this association using findings reported by longitudinal population-based studies. Methods Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using keywords and text words related to occupational exposures and lung function and 12 longitudinal population-based studies were identified using predefined inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Lung function decline was defined as annual loss of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) or the ratio (FEV1/FVC). Fixed and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates for ever and cumulative exposures. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2test, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots. Results Ever exposures to gases/fumes, vapours, gases, dusts, fumes (VGDF) and aromatic solvents were significantly associated with FEV1decline in meta-analyses. Cumulative exposures for these three occupational agents observed a similar trend of FEV1decline. Ever exposures to fungicides and cumulative exposures to biological dust, fungicides and insecticides were associated with FEV1decline in fixed-effect models only. No statistically significant association was observed between mineral dust, herbicides and metals and FEV1decline in meta-analyses. Conclusion Pooled estimates from the longitudinal population-based studies have provided evidence that occupational exposures are associated with FEV1decline. Specific exposure control and respiratory health surveillance are required to protect the lung health of the workers.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".