MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411298897 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaf029

The relation of musculoskeletal disorders to ergonomic work demands in welders and electrical workers: a prospective Canadian cohort study

2025· article· en· W4411298897 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicola Cherry, Jeremy Beach, Jean‐Michel Galarneau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWorkSafe VictoriaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthWork (physics)MedicineMusculoskeletal disorderCohort studyCohortPoison controlProspective cohort studyInjury preventionOccupational medicinePhysical therapySuicide preventionGerontologyOccupational exposureEnvironmental healthEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal disorders are known to result from physical demands at the workplace. Identification of risks specific to particular trades may encourage work modification to prevent new onset conditions. METHODS: In a Canadian cohort study of male and female welders and electrical workers, we collected self-reports of low-back pain, shoulder pain, and symptoms suggestive of vibration white finger (VWF) at each 6-monthly contact for up to 5 yr. Physician records of back and shoulder/joint disorders and Raynaud's syndrome were extracted from the Alberta administrative health database (AHDB). At each contact, participants completed questions on ergonomic work factors. We computed cumulative hours exposed for 6 factors: whole-body vibration, hand-arm vibration, manipulating heavy objects, working at or above shoulder height, working while crouching or kneeling, and work in cold environments. The relation of current and log cumulative exposures to health outcomes was identified by proportional hazards regression, adjusting for sex, age, body mass index, smoking, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: Of 1,885 workers recruited January 2011 to September 2017, 872 welders and 812 electrical workers recorded symptoms and workplace demands on at least one occasion, with 693 welders and 567 electrical workers matched to the AHDB. In final models, whole-body vibration was related overall to each self-reported health outcome with backpain risk most in evidence for male welders (HR = 1.10 log increase/h of exposure: 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.15, P < 0.001). Working in a crouching position and in cold temperatures also contributed to back pain in welders. Cumulative hours working at or above shoulder height increased welders' risk of shoulder pain (HR = 1.07 log increase/h of exposure: 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11, P = 0.001). Working at or above shoulder height was related to both back and shoulder pain in the electrical trades, where cumulative exposure to hand-arm vibration was an additional factor for shoulder pain (HR = 1.06 log increase/h of exposure: 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.10, P = 0.007). Manipulating heavy loads was a further risk factor for back and shoulder pain for women in electrical work. There were only 3 incident cases of Raynaud's syndrome in physician records: symptoms suggestive of VWF related strongly to work in cold environments but not to hand-arm vibration. Physician records of back pain did not reflect specific workplace demands, but physician records of shoulder/joint conditions were greater, overall, in those with longer exposure to whole-body vibration and to current hand-arm vibration in electrical workers. CONCLUSION: Vibration, a well-recognized hazard, was a risk factor for all outcomes but with whole-body vibration more evidently a risk for welders and hand-arm vibration for electrical workers. The final models of risk factors differed importantly between the two trades, suggesting specific targets for intervention.

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)0.000
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207