MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Technique to Re-Assess Epidemiologic Evidence in Light of the Healthy Worker Effect: The Case of Firefighting and Heart Disease

2000· article· en· W2092365308 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFirefightingDiseaseCohort studyCohortHeart diseaseHeart failureDiabetes mellitusEnvironmental healthGerontologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthy worker effect (HWE) is a bias that is believed to have strongly affected the validity of previous cohort mortality studies on the relationship between firefighting and heart disease. There is a strong healthy hired effect (a component of the HWE) among firefighters, owing particularly to the recruitment of nondiabetic candidates. This is shown in previous studies in which the reported standardized mortality ratios for diabetes are much less than unity, generally around 0.3 to 0.5. Because diabetes is known to increase the risk of heart disease, a deficit of diabetes among firefighters is expected to lead to a deficit of heart injury and disease. This would make the cohort mortality studies incapable of detecting any increase in risk of heart injury and disease among firefighters. There is also a strong healthy worker survivor effect (another component of the HWE) among firefighters. In addition, heart disease is a classic example of the HWE because heart disease is chronic and its risk factors can be identified in the selection process. It is believed that (1) a major problem of previous studies on firefighting and heart disease is their failure to recognize the importance of the HWE when interpreting their results, and (2) a technique to re-assess results in light of the HWE is urgently needed. This article addresses the generally accepted principles relating to the HWE, including its definition and sources, and proposes a technique for re-assessing the literature in light of the HWE. The technique was applied to carefully re-assess 23 studies that provided direct evidence for the relationship between firefighting and heart disease. Before the re-assessment, 7 of the 23 studies showed positive evidence and 16 showed no evidence. After the re-assessment, 11 studies showed positive evidence and 12 showed no evidence. Based on the results of the re-assessment of the 23 studies, we concluded that (1) there is strong evidence of an increased risk of death overall from heart disease among firefighters; (2) there is insufficient evidence, even after considering the HWE, that there is an increased risk of death from aortic aneurysm among firefighters; and (3) there is insufficient evidence, even after considering the HWE, for a relationship between firefighting and any heart disease subtype, such as acute myocardial infarction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it