Pulmonary function among flour mill workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flour dust, with an inherent allergic nature, increases vulnerability to various respiratory ailments. We systemically reviewed and compared literature-reported pulmonary function parameters to quantify pulmonary dysfunction among individuals with high flour dust exposure (among flour mill workers) and relatively un-exposed groups. Studies that compared pulmonary function parameters for flour dust exposed and unexposed control groups were systemically searched in PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception to June 2024. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias among included studies. With the random effect model, we pooled (along with 95% CI) the mean difference for forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), the ratio of FEV1 & FVC, mid-expiratory flow (FEF25-75%), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and other pulmonary function parameters. Cochran-Q test and I2 statistics were applied to determine heterogeneity. This quantitative synthesis included twenty-two studies involving 2,482 flour dust exposed and 1,925 control participants. The pooled mean difference for FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, PEFR and FEF25 − 75% were − 0.43 L (-0.57, -0.29; I2 = 88.7), -0.49 L (-0.64, -0.33; I2 = 89.3), -3.5% (-6.49, -0.5; I2 = 89.7), -1.36 L/s (-1.70, -1.03; I2 = 90.4) and − 0.34 L/s (-0.63, -0.06; I2 = 77.3). The pooled odds ratio for obstructive [12.9 (3.41, 49.2); I2 = 82.4)] and restrictive changes [5.11 (0.55, 47.4); I2 = 81.6] were significantly higher among the exposed than controls. As per the bias assessment majority of studies rated with moderate to severe risk of bias. Study observed pulmonary function deficits associated with exposure to flour dust. However, considering the quality of primary studies and higher heterogeneity, high-quality larger studies with longitudinal design are required to affirm the effects of flour dust on lung function.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".