Inverse probability weighting to estimate impacts of hypothetical occupational limits on radon exposure to reduce lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radon is a known cause of lung cancer. Protective standards for radon exposure are derived largely from studies of working populations that are prone to healthy worker survivor bias. This bias can lead to underprotection of workers and is a key barrier to understanding health effects of many exposures. We apply inverse probability weighting to study a set of hypothetical exposure limits among 4137 male, White and American Indian radon-exposed uranium miners in the Colorado Plateau followed from 1950 to 2005. We estimate cumulative risk of lung cancer through age 90 under hypothetical occupational limits. We estimate that earlier implementation of the current US Mining Safety and Health Administration annual standard of 4 working level months (implemented here as a monthly exposure limit) could have reduced lung cancer mortality from 16 of 100 workers to 6 of 100 workers (95% confidence interval, 3/100, 8/100), in contrast with previous estimates of 10 of 100 workers. Our estimate is similar to that among contemporaneous occupational cohorts. Inverse probability weighting is a simple and computationally efficient way address healthy worker survivor bias to contrast health effects of exposure limits and estimate the number of excess health outcomes under exposure limits at work.
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 | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".