Abstracts from the 2025 Canadian Association of Pathologists (CAP-ACP) Annual Scientific Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prolonged microscope use is commonly associated with workrelated musculoskeletal injuries (WR-MSI), resulting in numerous negative effects.This study examines WR-MSI among Cytotechnologists and other microscope users in Alberta.Methods: This ethically-approved cross-sectional study investigates the prevalence and impact of WR-MSI in microscope users, along with factors associated with MSI.Survey data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics.Results: A key finding is that over 85% of all Cytotechnologists reported experiencing WR-MSI.66% reported injury to their neck, more than any other body site surveyed.Cytotechnologists showed greater effect of WR-MSI than trainees or Pathologists (p< 0.001).This included negative impact on both workplace performance, with decreased productivity and missed work, as well as personal life, with mental health and participation in life outside of work.Conclusions: This study indicates a high prevalence of WR-MSI and its deleterious effects on work and personal life in microscope-using medical laboratory staff; particularly Cytotechnologists.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.213 | 0.074 |
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".