A Probabilistic Approach for Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Interventions: A Case Study of Silica Exposure Reduction Interventions in the Construction Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Construction workers are at a high risk of exposure to various types of hazardous substances such as crystalline silica. Though multiple studies indicate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of different silica exposure reduction interventions in the construction sector, the decisions for selecting a specific silica exposure reduction intervention are best informed by an economic evaluation. Economic evaluation of interventions is subjected to uncertainties in practice, mostly due to the lack of precise data on important variables. In this study, we aim to identify the most cost-beneficial silica exposure reduction intervention for the construction sector under uncertain situation. Methods: We apply a probabilistic modeling approach that covers a large number of variables relevant to the cost of lung cancer, as well as the costs of silica exposure reduction interventions. To estimate the societal lifetime cost of lung cancer, we use an incidence cost approach. To estimate the net benefit of each intervention, we compare the expected cost of lung cancer cases averted, with expected cost of implementation of the intervention in one calendar year. Sensitivity analysis is used to quantify how different variables effects interventions net benefit. Results: A positive net benefit is expected for all considered interventions. The highest number of lung cancer cases are averted by combined use of wet method, local exhaust ventilation and personal protective equipment, about 107 cases, with expected net benefit of $45.9 million. Results also suggest that the level of exposure is an important determinant for the selection of the most cost-beneficial intervention. Conclusions: This study provides important insights for decision makers about silica exposure reduction interventions in the construction sector. It also provides an overview of the potential advantages of using probabilistic modeling approach to undertake economic evaluations, particularly when researchers are confronted with a large number of uncertain variables.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".