Printed In U.SA. Effects of Agricultural Work and Other Proxy-derived Case-Control Data on Parkinson's Disease Risk Estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects on Parkinson's disease risk estimates of exposure misciassification in proxy-derived data on agricultural work, pesticide use, rural living, well water drinking, head trauma, smoking, and family history of Parkinson's disease or essential tremor. The data were collected in 1989 as part of a population-based case-control study of Parkinson's disease in Calgary, Canada. Nondemented cases (n = 130) were selected from a case register of Calgary residents with neurologist-confirmed Parkinson's disease. For each case, two matched (sex and age ± 2.5 years) community controls were selected by random digit dialing. Forty cases and 77 controls were randomly selected as index respondents. The cases, controls, and one proxy respondent (spouse or offspring) for each Index respondent were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Incorporation of proxy-derived data for 30 % of the cases or controls, or both, resulted in considerable misciassification of exposure for some variables and, in most cases, attenuation of the odds ratio. The results indicate that pooling dichotomously classified data derived in part from self- and proxy respondents may result in biased estimates of Parkinson's disease risk associated with agricultural, family history, and head trauma factors. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:747-54. case-control studies; epidemiologic methods; head injuries; Parkinson disease; pesticides; smoking Case-control studies of chronic neurologic disor-ders, such as idiopathic Parkinson's disease (1, 2), Alzheimer's disease (3-6), or stroke (7, 8), have fre-quently relied on proxy respondents (usually spouses, offspring, siblings, or other relatives) to provide ret-rospective exposure data for cases who are deceased, demented, or otherwise unable to provide their own information and for controls. The quality of the proxy-derived data, however, is a concern as is the potential for bias in the risk estimates due to exposure miscias-sification (9-12). Several studies have evaluated the comparability of
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.020 |
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".