The analysis of asbestos count data with “nondetects”: The example of asbestos fiber concentrations in the lungs of brake workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the analysis of tissue for asbestos fibers, some measurements may be below the analytical detection limit (nondetects). The use of maximum likelihood and survival analysis methods have been recommended to perform comparisons between subjects in the presence of nondetects. When the data consist of "counts" another method is useful. This method is discussed, and illustrated with an analysis of asbestos lung burden data among brake mechanics previously analyzed by other methods. METHODS: Statistical models for count data, namely Poisson and negative binomial regression, were used to compare the asbestos fiber concentrations in the lungs of brake mechanics with those of control subjects. The fit of the models was assessed with an analysis of residuals. RESULTS: The negative binomial regression models fit the data well. The concentrations of Quebec asbestos fibers in the lungs of the brake mechanics were significantly higher than in the control population. CONCLUSIONS: Helsel recommended the use of maximum likelihood and survival analysis methods to perform comparisons in the presence of nondetects. When analyzing asbestos fiber count data, or other count data arising in occupational or environmental health, the use of models such as the Poisson and negative binomial may be added to the analyst's toolbox. Benefits are that neither of these methods requires the substitution of arbitrary values for the nondetects and that programs for the computation of count data models are contained in popular statistical software packages.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".