Assessing exposure to occupational chemicals in large-scale epidemiological studies on occupational cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When pooling data across community-based case-control studies exposure assessment has to be redone in order to overcome the issue of the lowest common denominator. Also when exposure assessment is based on expert judgement, no straightforward approaches exist for calibration and pooling of these exposure estimates. Often though, complete and detailed occupational histories of study participants will be available which can be used for a standardised approach across centres/ studies. For instance in the SYNERGY project we successfully managed to collect actual exposure measurements across Europa and Canada covering almost 4 decades (1970-2010). Based on this wealth of exposure data a JEM could be elaborated with quantitative estimates of level of exposure by job, year and region. Combining this JEM with occupational histories of cases and controls resulted in quantitative exposure histories which allowed derivation of quantitative exposure response relationships for amongst others silica and asbestos. In industry-based cohort studies exposure assessment can often be performed at a more detailed level by ascertaining detailed occupational histories and collecting production characteristics in multiple companies enrolled in a cohort study. By collecting industry-specific measurements with detailed auxiliary information very detailed exposure models can be derived. Consequently these models will allow for quantitative exposure estimates at the detailed level of exposure scenario (rather than at the level of a job). For instance, in the European Asphalt Workers study we were able to estimate quantitatively workers exposure to bitumen fume, organic vapour, and benzo(a)pyrene. Standardisation of exposure assessment tools, approaches and empirical modelling are needed in this day and age where big data will be the norm and will be needed to discern undetected health risks. However, availability of actual measurements of workers' exposure will stay a prerequisite in order to calibrate and validate exposure assessment methods employed in large-scale epidemiological studies on occupational health risks.
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 | 0.159 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".