MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086730566 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaa086

Evidence of Absence: Bayesian Way to Reveal True Zeros Among Occupational Exposures

2020· article· en· W3086730566 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Lavoué, Igor Burstyn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLog-normal distributionStatisticsCensoring (clinical trials)Bayesian probabilityEconometricsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Workplace exposure measurements typically contain some observations below limit of detection. The current paradigm for exposure data interpretation relies on the lognormal distribution, where censored observation are assumed to be present but not quantifiable. However, there are setting were such assumptions are untenable and true zero exposures cannot be ruled out. This issue can be non-trivial because decisions about compliance depend on the adequacy of the lognormal model. METHODS: We adapted previously described statistical models for mixture of true zeros and lognormal distribution to function within Bayesian procedure that overcomes historical limitations that precluded them from being used in practice. We compared the performance of the new models and the traditional lognormal model in simulation. Their implementation is illustrated in diverse datasets. RESULTS: The approach we propose involves estimating the proportion of true zeroes, and the geometric mean and standard deviation of the lognormal component of the mixture. This can be implemented in practice either based on the truncated lognormal model fit to the observed data, or on the censored Bernoulli-lognormal mixture model, which has the advantage of allowing for multiple censoring points. Both models can be implemented via a free online application. In simulations, when none of the censored values were zeros, all estimation procedures led to similar risk assessment. However, when all or most of the censored values were zeros, the traditional approach that assumes lognormal distribution performed noticeably worse than newly proposed methods, typically overestimating noncompliance. Application to real data suggests that we cannot rule out presence of true zero exposures in typical measurement series gathered by occupational hygienists. CONCLUSIONS: Forcing the usual lognormal model to data containing a large proportion of censored values can bias risk assessment if a substantial part of the censored points are true zeroes. The Bernoulli-lognormal model is a suitable and accessible model that can account for such challenging data, and leads to unbiased risk assessments regardless of the presence of true zeros in the data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207