Improving Population Attributable Fraction Methods: Examining Smoking-attributable Mortality for 87 Geographic Regions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoking-attributable mortality (SAM) is the number of deaths in a population caused by smoking. In this study, the authors examined and empirically quantified the effects of methodological problems in the estimation of SAM through population attributable fraction methods. In addition to exploring common concerns regarding generalizability and residual confounding in relative risks, the authors considered errors in measuring estimates of risk exposure prevalence and mortality in target populations and estimates of relative risks from etiologic studies. They also considered errors resulting from combining these three sources of data. By modifying SAM estimates calculated using smoking prevalence obtained from the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, a population-based survey of 131,535 Canadian households, the authors observed the following effects of potential errors on estimated national SAM (and the range of effects on 87 regional SAMs): 1) using a slightly biased, mismatched definition of former smoking: 5.3% (range, 1.8% to 11.6%); 2) using age-collapsed prevalence and relative risks: 6.9% (range, 1.1% to 15.5%) and -15.4% (range, -7.9% to -21.0%), respectively; 3) using relative risks derived from the same cohort but with a shorter follow-up period: 8.7% (range, 4.5% to 11.8%); 4) using relative risks for all diseases with age-collapsed prevalence: 49.7% (range, 24.1% to 82.2%); and 5) using prevalence estimates unadjusted for exposure-outcome lag: -14.5% (range, -20.8% to 42.6%) to -1.4% (range, -0.8% to -2.7%), depending on the method of adjustment. Applications of the SAM estimation method should consider these sources of potential error.
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 | 0.030 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".