4.2 Article

Potential occupational risks for neurodegenerative diseases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 63-77

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20178

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; hairdresser; motor neuron disease; magnetic field; Parkinson's disease; pesticide; welding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Associations between occupations and neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) may be discernable in death certificate data. Methods Hypotheses generated from 1982 to 1991 study were tested in data from 22 states for the years 1992-1998. Specific occupations and exposures to pesticides, solvents, oxidative stressors, magnetic fields, and welding fumes were evaluated. Results About one third (26187) of the occupations hypothesized with neurodegenerative associations had statistically significant elevated mortality odds ratios (MOR)for the same outcome. Occupations with the largest MORs were (a) for presenile dementia (PSD)dentists, graders/sorters (non-agricultural), and clergy; (b) for Alzheimer's disease (AD)-bank tellers, clergy, aircraft mechanics, and hairdressers; (c) for Parkinson's disease (PD)-biological scientists, clergy, religious workers, and post-secondary teachers; and (d) for motor neuron disease (MND)-veterinarians, hairdressers, and graders and sorters (non-agricultural). Teachers had significantly, elevated MORs for all four diseases, and hairdressers for three of the four. Non -horticultural farmers below age 65 had elevated PD (MOR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.47-3.26), PSD (MOR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.10-4.05), and AD (MOR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.04-2.81). Sixty hertz magnetic fields exhibited significant exposure-response for AD and, below age 65, for PD (MOR = 1.87, 95% CI=1.14-2.98) and MND (MOR=1.63, 95% CI=1.10-2.39). Welding had elevated PD mortality below age 65 (MOR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.08-2.75). Conclusions Support was observed for hypothesized excess neurodegenerative disease associated with a variety, of occupations, 60 Hz magnetic fields and welding. Published 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据