O-85 Sex differences in work-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The role of occupation in the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has become increasingly apparent. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding risk of COPD in female workers. This study aims to investigate the sex differences in the occupational risk of COPD among workers in Ontario, Canada. Materials and Methods COPD cases were identified in the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS). The ODSS was established through the linkage of former compensation claimants (1983–2020), ambulatory care data (2006–2020), and hospital inpatient data (2006–2020) in Ontario. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by occupation. Risk estimates for broad industry groups were adjusted for cigarette smoking prevalence based on self-reported smoking history from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). Results A total of 30,249 male and 15,665 female incident cases of COPD were identified in the ODSS cohort (Nmale=1,321,752; Nfemale=653,215). Increased risks were observed in both sexes for construction (HRmale=1.15, 1.12–1.19; HRfemale=1.54, 1.29–1.83), transport/equipment operating (HRmale=1.32,1.28–1.37; HRfemale=1.53, 1.40–1.68), farming (HRmale=1.23, 1.15–1.32; HRfemale=1.19, 1.04–1.37) and janitors/cleaners (HRmale=1.31, 1.24–1.37; HRfemale=1.40, 1.31–1.49). Increased risks were also observed in forestry/logging (HRmale=1.29, 1.14–1.47) and mining/quarrying (HRmale=1.23, 1.10–1.37) for males only. Increased risks were observed for females in service occupations, including chefs and cooks (HRfemale=1.44, 1.31–1.58), bartenders (HRfemale=1.38, 1.05–1.81), waitresses/hostesses/stewardesses (HRfemale=1.48, 1.35–1.61), food/beverage preparation (HRfemale=1.34, 1.24–1.45), accommodation supervisors (HRfemale=1.36, 1.04–1.77) and accommodation managers (HRfemale=2.02, 1.30–3.14). Similar findings were observed for industry groups and remained consistent with adjustment for cigarette smoking. Conclusions Study findings support existing evidence for risk of COPD among men and women in primarily dusty trades. However, results also provide evidence of increased risk among female workers in service occupations where exposures, such as second-hand smoke, may be overlooked.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".