MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165223204 · doi:10.1080/08958370590929439

Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study, Part II: Sensitivity Analysis

2005· article· en· W2165223204 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Krewski, Richard T. Burnett, Mark S. Goldberg, Kristin Hoover, Jack Siemiatycki, Michał Abrahamowicz, Paul J. Villeneuve, W. H. White

Bibliographic record

VenueInhalation Toxicology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Population and Public HealthHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingEnvironmental healthDemographyCovariateAir pollutionProportional hazards modelPopulationEffect modificationEnvironmental scienceMedicineStatisticsConfidence intervalChemistryMathematicsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the validation and replication of the Harvard Six Cities Study (Krewski et al., this issue), we conducted a wide range of sensitivity analyses to explore the observed associations between long-term exposure to fine particle or sulfate air pollution and mortality. We examined the impact of alternative risk models on estimates of risk, taking into account covariates not included in the original analyses. These risk models provided a basis for identifying covariates that may confound or modify the association between fine particle or sulfate air pollution and mortality, and for identifying sensitive population subgroups. The possibility of confounding due to occupational exposures was also investigated. Residence histories were coded for the study subjects and were used to examine temporal patterns of exposure and risk. Our sensitivity analyses showed the mortality risk estimates for fine particle and sulfate air pollution to be highly robust against alternative risk models of the Cox proportional hazards family, including models with additional covariates from the original questionnaires not included in the original published analyses. There was limited evidence of departures from the proportional hazards assumption. Flexible exposure-response models provided some evidence of departures from linearity at both low and high sulfate concentrations. Incorporating information on changes over time in cigarette smoking and body mass index had little effect on the association between fine particles and mortality. There was limited evidence of variation in risk with attained age, gender, smoking status, occupational exposure to dust and fumes, marital status, heart or lung diseases, or lung function. However, air pollution risk did appear to decreasing with increasing educational attainment. Extensive adjustment for occupation using aggregate indices of occupational "dirtiness" and occupational exposure to known lung carcinogens had little impact on the mortality risks associated with particulate air pollution. Our evaluation of population mobility indicated that relatively few subjects moved from their original city of residence. Attempts to identify critical exposure time windows were limited by the lack of marked interindividual variation in temporal exposure patterns throughout the study period. Overall, this extensive sensitivity analysis both supported the conclusions reached by the original investigators and demonstrated the robustness of these conclusions to alternative analytic approaches.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInhalation ToxicologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207