The Semmelweis Study: a longitudinal occupational cohort study within the framework of the Semmelweis Caring University Model Program for supporting healthy aging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Semmelweis Study is a prospective occupational cohort study that seeks to enroll all employees of Semmelweis University (Budapest, Hungary) aged 25 years and older, with a population of 8866 people, 70.5% of whom are women. The study builds on the successful experiences of the Whitehall II study and aims to investigate the complex relationships between lifestyle, environmental, and occupational risk factors, and the development and progression of chronic age-associated diseases. An important goal of the Semmelweis Study is to identify groups of people who are aging unsuccessfully and therefore have an increased risk of developing age-associated diseases. To achieve this, the study takes a multidisciplinary approach, collecting economic, social, psychological, cognitive, health, and biological data. The Semmelweis Study comprises a baseline data collection with open healthcare data linkage, followed by repeated data collection waves every 5 years. Data are collected through computer-assisted self-completed questionnaires, followed by a physical health examination, physiological measurements, and the assessment of biomarkers. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the Semmelweis Study, including its origin, context, objectives, design, relevance, and expected contributions.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it