Estimating the Extent and Distribution of New-Onset Adult Asthma in British Columbia Using Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We previously described a method to identify the incidence of new-onset adult asthma (NOAA) in Alberta by industry and occupation, utilizing Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and physician billing data. The aim of this study was to extend this method to data from British Columbia (BC) so as to compare the two provinces and to incorporate Bayesian methodology into estimates of risk. METHODS: WCB claims for any reason 1995-2004 were linked to physician billing data. NOAA was defined as a billing for asthma (ICD-9 493) in the 12 months before a WCB claim without asthma in the previous 3 years. Incidence was calculated by occupation and industry. In a matched case-referent analysis, associations with exposures were examined using an asthma-specific job exposure matrix (JEM). Posterior distributions from the Alberta analysis and estimated misclassification parameters were used as priors in the Bayesian analysis of the BC data. RESULTS: Among 1 118 239 eligible WCB claims the incidence of NOAA was 1.4%. Sixteen occupations and 44 industries had a significantly increased risk; six industries had a decreased risk. The JEM identified wood dust [odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.24] and animal antigens (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36) as related to an increased risk of NOAA. Exposure to isocyanates was associated with decreased risk (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.85). Bayesian analyses taking account of exposure misclassification and informative priors resulted in posterior distributions of ORs with lower boundary of 95% credible intervals >1.00 for almost all exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of NOAA in BC appeared somewhat similar to that in Alberta, except for isocyanates. Bayesian analyses allowed incorporation of prior evidence into risk estimates, permitting reconsideration of the apparently protective effect of isocyanate exposure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".