MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

1673d Assessing exposure to occupational chemicals in large-scale epidemiological studies on occupational cancers

2018· article· en· W2799946610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans Kromhout

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical Safety and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational exposureEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthOccupational cancerScale (ratio)MedicineOccupational medicinePathologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When pooling data across community-based case-control studies exposure assessment has to be redone in order to overcome the issue of the lowest common denominator. Also when exposure assessment is based on expert judgement, no straightforward approaches exist for calibration and pooling of these exposure estimates. Often though, complete and detailed occupational histories of study participants will be available which can be used for a standardised approach across centres/studies. For instance in the SYNERGY project we successfully managed to collect actual exposure measurements across Europa and Canada covering almost 4 decades (1970–2010). Based on this wealth of exposure data a JEM could be elaborated with quantitative estimates of level of exposure by job, year and region. Combining this JEM with occupational histories of cases and controls resulted in quantitative exposure histories which allowed derivation of quantitative exposure response relationships for amongst others silica and asbestos. In industry-based cohort studies exposure assessment can often be performed at a more detailed level by ascertaining detailed occupational histories and collecting production characteristics in multiple companies enrolled in a cohort study. By collecting industry-specific measurements with detailed auxiliary information very detailed exposure models can be derived. Consequently these models will allow for quantitative exposure estimates at the detailed level of exposure scenario (rather than at the level of a job). For instance, in the European Asphalt Workers study we were able to estimate quantitatively workers exposure to bitumen fume, organic vapour, and benzo(a)pyrene. Standardisation of exposure assessment tools, approaches and empirical modelling are needed in this day and age where big data will be the norm and will be needed to discern undetected health risks. However, availability of actual measurements of workers’ exposure will stay a prerequisite in order to calibrate and validate exposure assessment methods employed in large-scale epidemiological studies on occupational health risks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicChemical Safety and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207