Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in paint industry workers exposed to volatile organic compounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have examined the respiratory consequences of occupational exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However, their effects on paint industry workers in organised and unorganised occupational sectors vary. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aim at evaluating the respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function of paint industry workers from various occupational sectors exposed to VOCs. Relevant MESH terms were used for literature search in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar till August 2023. The articles were independently retrieved and qualified by two reviewers and two subject experts arbitrated reviewer differences to establish relevant article inclusion. The systematic review comprised 23 observational studies that assessed respiratory symptom and pulmonary function tests (PFT) among paint industry worker from various occupational sectors. The meta-analysis included 12 studies on respiratory symptoms and 18 on PFT. Pooled meta-analysis was done using random effect model, and the crude odds of respiratory symptoms such as cough (OR: 2.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 4.25), dyspnoea (OR: 3.59, 95% CI: 2.13 to 6.05), nasal/throat irritation (OR: 4.5, 95% CI: 1.7 to 12.1), and wheezing (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.82) were significantly higher among paint industry workers exposed to VOC compared to unexposed population. PFT parameters, such as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (SMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -1.5 to -0.2) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) (SMD: -0.97, 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.32) were found to be significantly reduced among the paint industry workers. The meta-analysis has helped in generating evidence regarding the effect of VOC on respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function and the strength of the association varied with geographical regions, and the type of occupational sectors. Despite the heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) of studies, statistical power of this analysis was significant. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022311390.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".