Mapping the occurrence of acute myeloid leukemia: Methodological limitations and future direction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A recent article by Ghazawi et al1 examines crude incidence rates of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) across Canada by provincial, municipal, and postal code forward sortation area (FSA) geographic units. This article is among the first to report on the burden of AML across Canada and hypothesizes that industrial pollution, namely benzene, in the ambient environment has led to “clusters” of high AML incidence rates in Ontario. Important principles of spatial disease surveillance are well documented, as noted in an editorial by Samet and Cockburn.2 We wish to raise additional methodological limitations to guide spatial surveillance work. The importance of complete age standardization for cancer risk hypotheses cannot be understated; rudimentary age stratification at 65 years adjusted Sarnia's AML incidence rate from 47.61 to 34.27 per 1,000,000 person-years (Canadian incidence rate, 30.61).1 In addition, correlative analyses require standardization. The authors cite CAREX Canada, which shows that Ontario (~40% of the Canadian population3) has the largest number of workers exposed to benzene.4 However, per capita occupational benzene exposure, as reported by CAREX, ranks Quebec and Alberta above Ontario; also, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba have higher proportions of workers exposed to benzene in comparison with the national average.4 Regarding outdoor air exposures, in comparison with Ontarians, population exposures by benzene concentration levels estimated by CAREX report that more Quebecers and British Columbians (by numbers and proportions) are exposed to >1.5 and >2.5 times the annual national average, respectively.5 Thus, simple, expected dose-response relationships appear to be lacking to support the hypothesis. Once age-standardized incidence rates are available, correlation tests provide objective tests of the consistency with which high measures coincide. Supporting Figure 3 in Ghazawi et al1 highlights several cities with high AML crude incidences and higher average annual benzene estimates, and they note “a very consistent trend.” Nevertheless, the greater Toronto area, Sudbury, Timmins, Ottawa, Windsor, and other “nonhigh” AML incidence cities have higher benzene estimates, too (ie, inconsistency). Spatial clusters are described as the authors present findings by more granular FSAs. Well-established statistical tests of local spatial clusters are available (eg, the Space and Time Scan statistic6 and the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic7), and they provide objective evidence of spatial clustering. Using these tests strengthens findings to reduce concerns about selective reporting. Ghazawi et al1 continually contrast each geographic unit's 95% confidence intervals with the national rate1 (Supporting Appendix 1) and thus inflate type I errors. With 5418 census subdivisions (“cities”) as of the 2006 census,8 this is a significant issue. Furthermore, because geographic units were examined at multiple geographic levels, chance detection of nonelevated rates is expected. Methods to adjust P values for multiple testing are available. Though conservative, Bonferroni correction is straightforward to use.9 Altered boundaries for smaller area geographic units can be a critical issue. Major municipal amalgamation occurred between the 1990s and 2000s in Ontario.10, 11 For example, in Supporting Table 3, Ghazawi et al1 report East York as a low-incidence city, yet this city amalgamated with Toronto in 1998.12 We therefore flag concerns about the methods used to align 19 years of cancer incidence data with population data. Such concerns exist regarding FSA boundaries, too. For example, examining the historical boundaries of the “highest” crude incidence FSA in Canada, we find that N7V changed boundaries twice between 1996 and 2006.8, 13 Smaller area estimates are typically sensitive to misclassification bias, which can produce highly variable estimates. We encourage studies to describe methodological approaches to these challenges or discuss them as limitations. Care should be taken when one is describing geographic places and terminology. We note that FSA N7V, with the highest crude incidence rate in Canada, is the town of Point Edward (not “downtown Sarnia”1). Sarnia FSAs N7T and N7S contain and are immediately east-and-north of, respectively, “chemical valley", eg, https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/10/14/in-sarnias-chemical-valley-is-toxic-soup-making-people-sick.html but they were not reported as high-incidence areas (ie, variability and inconsistency). The authors describe “contiguous” FSAs with elevated rates that do not share a common border (Fig. 5 in Ghazawi et al1). In addition, 91 FSAs were considered to have a high incidence rate, with 48 described as industrial. We are left wondering about the 47% of the high-incidence FSAs (n = 43) that are nonindustrial. Careful description and presentation of findings reduce concerns about selective reporting. Sophisticated methods for ecological studies are available (eg, Bayesian models14), and additional issues abound (eg, population mobility15); however, the methodological issues that we raise are fundamental. We have presented several factors requiring consideration to support the hypothesized association between benzene and AML: adjustment for obvious confounders (eg, age), dose response and consistency (ie, many higher benzene exposure regions did not have higher AML incidence rates), biases (eg, a potential misclassification bias) and statistical tests that consider multiple testing. No specific funding was disclosed. The authors made no disclosures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,340 | 0,526 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».