Expostats: A Bayesian Toolkit to Aid the Interpretation of Occupational Exposure Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interpretation of exposure measurements has evolved into a framework based on the lognormal distribution. Most available practical tools are based on traditional frequentist statistical procedures that do not satisfactorily account for censored data and are not amenable to simple probabilistic risk statements. Bayesian methods offer promising solutions to these challenges. Such methods have been proposed in the literature but are not widely and freely available to practitioners. METHODS: A set of computer applications were developed aimed at answering typical inferential questions that are important to occupational health practitioners: Is a group of workers compliant with an occupational exposure limit? Are some individuals within this group likely to experience substantially higher exposure than its average member? How does an intervention influence the distribution of exposures? These questions were addressed using Bayesian models, simultaneously accounting for left, right, and interval-censored data with multiple censoring points. The models are estimated using the JAGS Gibbs sampler called through the R statistical package. RESULTS: The Expostats toolkit is freely available from www.expostats.ca as four tools accessible through a Web application, an offline standalone application or algorithms. The tools include a variety of calculations and graphical outputs useful according to current practices in analysis and interpretation of exposure measurements collected by occupational hygienists. Tool1 and its simplified version Tool1 Express focus on inferences from data from a similarly exposed group. Tool2 evaluates within- and between-worker components of variability, as well as the probability that an individual worker might be overexposed. Tool3 compares exposure data across groups, e.g. evaluates the effect of an intervention. Uncertainty management includes the calculation of credible intervals and produces probabilistic statements about the exposure metrics (e.g. probability that over 5% of exposures are above a limit). DISCUSSION: Expostats is the first freely available toolkit that leverages the flexibility of Bayesian analysis to perform an extensive list of calculations recommended in several international guidelines on the practice of occupational hygiene.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".