MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391156976 · doi:10.1002/ajim.23566

Carpal tunnel syndrome among Manitoba workers: Results from the Manitoba Occupational Disease Surveillance System

2024· article· en· W4391156976 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Allen Kraut, Randy Walld, Paul A. Demers, Cheryl Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of ManitobaWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaBC Centre for Disease ControlBC Cancer FoundationPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaManitoba Health
FundersWorkers Compensation Board of Manitoba
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeMedicineWorkers' compensationHazard ratioCohortIndemnityOccupational exposureOccupational medicineOccupational safety and healthRisk assessmentDemographyOccupational diseaseHealth surveillanceCohort studyEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicineCompensation (psychology)Actuarial scienceConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is associated with occupational high-force repetitive tasks and vibration. This project examines the relationship between CTS and work to: (1) identify jobs and industries with increased CTS risk; (2) explore whether there is a sex difference in the risk of CTS after controlling for occupation; and (3) determine whether any observed relationships persist after excluding Workers Compensation Board (WCB) accepted time-loss CTS claims. METHODS: We linked 95.5% of time-loss WCB claims from 2006 to 2019 to provincial administrative health data. The cohort included 143,001 unique person-occupation combinations. CTS cases were defined as at least two medical claims for (ICD-9 354) within a 12-month period or a surgical claim for CTS from 2 years before the WCB claim to 3 years after. WCB accepted CTS time-loss claims not identified by the medical claims were also included. RESULTS: A total of 4302 individuals (3.0%) met the CTS definition. Analysis revealed that the hazard ratios (HRs) of CTS vary considerably with occupation. Sex-based differences in CTS risks were observed, both in low- and high-risk occupations. In many occupations with increased HR, the HR remained elevated after excluding accepted time-loss WCB cases. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing CTS varied with occupation. Job titles with ergonomic risk factors had higher risks than those with lower exposures. This finding remained after eliminating time-loss compensated WCB cases, suggesting that all cases of CTS in high risk jobs are not identified in WCB statistics. Female workers in some job titles had excess CTS cases compared to male workers within the same job title.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207