MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324137942 · doi:10.1136/oem-2023-epicoh.145

P-88 Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of Ontario workers

2023· article· en· W4324137942 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeavana Sritharan, Rebecca Prowse, Chaojie Song, Jill MacLeod, Brendan T. Smith, Tracy L Kirkham, Victoria H Arrandale, Jin Hee Kim, Meera Harris, Paul A. Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityOccupational Cancer Research CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortHazard ratioProportional hazards modelCohort studyRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineConfidence intervalMedical emergencyDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Work is a key determinant of COVID-19 outcomes, however occupational surveillance is a critical information gap in many countries, including Canada. Understanding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 by occupation can identify high risk groups that can be targeted for prevention strategies. Materials and Methods The cohort includes 1,205,847 former workers compensation (non-COVID-19) claimants (aged 15–65) linked to health databases in Ontario, Canada. Incident cases were defined as either having a confirmed positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in the Ontario Laboratory Information System (OLIS), or an International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA) diagnostic code of U07.1 in hospitalization or emergency department records (February 2020-December 2021). Workers were followed until diagnosis, death, emigration, age 65 or end of follow-up. Sex- and age-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazards ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by occupation, compared to all other cohort members. Analyses were also conducted to examine occupational trends in testing and diagnosis during waves of infection. Results Overall, 80,740 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed among workers during follow-up, of those, 80% were diagnosed with a positive PCR test. Associations were identified between COVID-19 diagnosis and employment in nursing (HR=1.44, CI95%=1.40–1.49), air transport operating (HR=1.61, CI95%=1.47–1.77), textile/fur/leather products fabricating, assembling, and repairing (HR=1.38, CI95%=1.25–1.54), apparel and furnishing services (HR=1.38, CI95%=1.19–1.60), and janitor and cleaning services (HR=1.11, CI95%=1.06–1.16). Restricted analyses where health care workers were omitted from the comparison group strengthened some associations for other high-risk workers. Test positivity ranged between 4–16% across major occupation groups. Risks varied over time and with changes in protective measures in workplaces and in broader communities. Conclusions Elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care, manufacturing, transportation, and service workers were identified, underscoring the importance of including occupational data in COVID-19 surveillance. Occupational trends in severe outcomes and vaccination are also being explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207