A Bayesian approach to investigate life course hypotheses involving continuous exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Different hypotheses have been proposed in life course epidemiology on how a time-varying exposure can affect health or disease later in life. Researchers are often interested in investigating the probability of these hypotheses based on observed life course data. However, current techniques based on model/variable selection do not provide a direct estimate of this probability. We propose an alternative technique for a continuous exposure, using a Bayesian approach that has specific advantages, to investigate which life course hypotheses are supported by the observed data. Methods: We demonstrate the technique, the relevant life course exposure model (RLM), using simulations. We also analyse data from a case-control study on risk factors of oral cancer, with repeated measurements of betel quid chewing across life. We investigate the relative importance of chewing one quid of betel per day, at three life periods: ≤20 years, 21-40 years and above 40 years of age, on the risk of developing oral cancer. Results: RLM was able to correctly identify the life course hypothesis under which the data were simulated. Results from the case-control study showed that there was 74.3% probability that betel quid exposure earlier in life, compared with later, results in higher odds of developing oral cancer later in life. Conclusions: RLM is a useful option to identify the life course hypothesis supported by the observed data prior to the estimation of a causal effect.
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 | 0.045 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".