Occupational Stress as A Risk Factor for Hypertension in Oil and Mine Workers: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Occupational stress is a pervasive concern in the extractive sector, which encompasses oil and mining activities, serving as a potential repercussion for cardiovascular health. Therefore, further studies about the correlation between occupational stress in extractive sector workers and hypertension are needed. This review highlights how occupational stress poses a risk for hypertension in oil workers and miners for better future management. Methods. Studies were extracted mostly from PubMed, using the keywords "occupational stress", "hypertension", "oil workers", and “miners”. The extracted studies were then analyzed and selected according to our inclusion criteria of clinical trials within the last 5 years with subjects working in oil fields or mines. This study excludes meta-analysis, systematic reviews, case reports, and animal studies. The New Castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to assess research quality. Only high-quality studies were considered in this analysis. Results. 7 studies were extracted for this review, all are of high quality based on the NOS. The studies used in this review described occupational stress as a risk factor for hypertension in oil or mine workers. Discussion. Two studies showed that the psychological impact of occupational stress leads to hypertension. Other studies showed that strong individual strains, gene mutation, hair cortisol concentration, and lifestyles, such as BMI, leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), and others may also be additional factors that lead to hypertension. Conclusion. Occupational stress poses a risk factor for hypertension in oil and mine workers, taking note also other potential additional factors that may be associated with it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".