Random left censoring: a second look at bone lead concentration measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone lead concentrations measured in vivo by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) are subjected to left censoring due to limited precision of the technique at very low concentrations. In the analysis of bone lead measurements, inverse variance weighting (IVW) of measurements is commonly used to estimate the mean of a data set and its standard error. Student's t-test is used to compare the IVW means of two sets, testing the hypothesis that the two sets are from the same population. This analysis was undertaken to assess the adequacy of IVW in the analysis of bone lead measurements or to confirm the results of IVW using an independent approach. The rationale is provided for the use of methods of survival data analysis in the study of XRF bone lead measurements. The procedure is provided for bone lead data analysis using the Kaplan-Meier and Nelson-Aalen estimators. The methodology is also outlined for the rank tests that are used to determine whether two censored sets are from the same population. The methods are applied on six data sets acquired in epidemiological studies. The estimated parameters and test statistics were compared with the results of the IVW approach. It is concluded that the proposed methods of statistical analysis can provide valid inference about bone lead concentrations, but the computed parameters do not differ substantially from those derived by the more widely used method of IVW.
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 | 0.024 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".