Reducing attenuation in exposure‐response relationships by exposure modeling and grouping: The relationship between wood dust exposure and lung function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a study of wood dust exposure and lung function, we tested the effect on the exposure-response relationship of six different exposure metrics using the mean measured exposure of each subject versus the mean exposure based on various methods of grouping subjects, including job-based groups and groups based on an empirical model of the determinants of exposure. METHODS: Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between wood dust concentration and forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)), adjusting for age, sex, height, race, pediatric asthma, and smoking. RESULTS: Stronger point estimates of the exposure-response relationships were observed when exposures were based on increasing levels of aggregation, allowing the relationships to be found statistically significant in four of the six metrics. The strongest point estimates were found when exposures were based on the determinants of exposure model. CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of exposure modeling offers the potential for improvement in risk estimation equivalent to or beyond that from job-based exposure grouping.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".