MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396823300 · doi:10.11836/jeom21428

Application of three statistical models in association between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exposure and cognitive level in workers

2022· article· en· W4396823300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huimin WANG, Mengmeng Fu, Min Wu, Chengjuan Liu, Du Juanjuan, Jisheng Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonCognitionEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceChemistryPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundAs a complex organic pollutant, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) exposure shares the common exposure characteristics of multiple hydroxyl metabolites. Most studies have analyzed independent effect of each PAHs metabolite and have adjusted for the potential confounding effects induced by other metabolites concomitantly, without considering possible interactions among them. Proper statistical methods are needed to study their toxic effects.ObjectiveTo explore the applicability of logistic regression, weighted quantile sum (WQS) regression, and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) in evaluating the correlation between mixed exposures to exogenous chemicals and health outcomes, compare the advantages and limitations of the three models, and propose analytical strategies for evaluating the health effects of mixed chemical exposure for application in the analysis of the association between PAHs exposure and cognition.MethodsUrine samples were collected of workers from a coke oven plant and a water treatment plant in Shanxi Province, who participated in their routine employee healthexamination. Mono-hydroxylated PAHs were detected by high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS), cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). A cut-off value of MoCA less than 26 was considered mild cognitive impairment (MCI). According to a predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 051 cases were included in the final data analysis. Logistic regression, WQS regression, and BKMR were used to analyze the relationship between PAHs metabolites and MCI.ResultsThe prevalence rate of reporting MCI among the 1 051 workers was 21.7% (228/1 051). The concentration of 2-hydroxynathalene (2-OHNAP) was the highest among the 11 PAHs metabolites with a median concentration of 0.30 μg·L−1, followed by 9-hydroxyphenanthrene (9-OHPHE) (0.26 μg·L−1). There were significant differences between the two groups in 2-OHNAP, 1-hydroxynaphthalene (1-OHNAP), 2-hydroxyfluorene (2-OHFLU), 9-OHPHE, 1-hydroxyphenanthrene (1-OHPHE), and 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHPYR) (all Ps<0.05). In the logistic regression, 2-OHNAP and 2-OHPHE were associated with MCI, and the OR (95%CI) for reporting MCI was 1.28 (1.01-1.67) and 1.27 (1.00-1.72) for each 10-fold increase in 2-OHNAP and 2-OHPHE concentrations, respectively. In the WQS regression analysis, the WQS index was positively correlated with the prevalence rate of reporting MCI (OR=1.37, 95%CI: 1.10-1.72). In the BKMR analysis, compared with the median exposure levels of all chemicals, the overall effect was statistically significant when all PAHs metabolites concentrations were at or above their 30th percentile; when all exposures were at the 75th percentile, the risk of reporting MCI increased by 6%.ConclusionBased on the results of these three models, 2-OHNAP and 2-OHPHE are the most important factors related to cognitive. It is recommended to use a combination of traditional logistic regression and either WQS or BKMR to study the association between PAHs and MCI.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.481
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.101 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207