Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24590110›Full record

ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2014

Systematically extracting metal- and solvent-related occupational information from free-text responses to lifetime occupational history questionnaires.

Melissa C Friesen, Sarah J Locke, Carina Tornow, Yu-Cheng Chen, Dong-Hee Koh, Patricia A Stewart, Mark Purdue, Joanne S Colt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melissa C Friesen1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA friesenmc@mail.nih.gov.
Sarah J Locke1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.
Carina Tornow2.Westat, 1600 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Yu-Cheng Chen1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.
Dong-Hee Koh1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.
Patricia A Stewart1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA 3.Stewart Exposure Assessments, LLC, 6045 N 27th Street, Arlington, VA 22207, USA.
Mark Purdue1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.
Joanne S Colt1.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8106, MSC 7240, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.

Funding

CANCER RISK IN HUMAN POPULATIONSZ01CP010136 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI SILVERMAN, DEBRA · 1997 to 2008
$5.1M
STUDIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER--OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTZ01CP010122 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI DOSEMECI, MUSTAFA · 1996 to 2008
$83k
Intramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS Z01 CP010136-19NCI NIH HHS Z01 CP10122-19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLifetime occupational history (OH) questionnaires often use open-ended questions to capture detailed information about study participants' jobs. Exposure assessors use this information, along with responses to job- and industry-specific questionnaires, to assign exposure estimates on a job-by-job basis. An alternative approach is to use information from the OH responses and the job- and industry-specific questionnaires to develop programmable decision rules for assigning exposures. As a first step in this process, we developed a systematic approach to extract the free-text OH responses and convert them into standardized variables that represented exposure scenarios.

methodsOur study population comprised 2408 subjects, reporting 11991 jobs, from a case-control study of renal cell carcinoma. Each subject completed a lifetime OH questionnaire that included verbatim responses, for each job, to open-ended questions including job title, main tasks and activities (task), tools and equipment used (tools), and chemicals and materials handled (chemicals). Based on a review of the literature, we identified exposure scenarios (occupations, industries, tasks/tools/chemicals) expected to involve possible exposure to chlorinated solvents, trichloroethylene (TCE) in particular, lead, and cadmium. We then used a SAS macro to review the information reported by study participants to identify jobs associated with each exposure scenario; this was done using previously coded standardized occupation and industry classification codes, and a priori lists of associated key words and phrases related to possibly exposed tasks, tools, and chemicals. Exposure variables representing the occupation, industry, and task/tool/chemicals exposure scenarios were added to the work history records of the study respondents. Our identification of possibly TCE-exposed scenarios in the OH responses was compared to an expert's independently assigned probability ratings to evaluate whether we missed identifying possibly exposed jobs.

resultsOur process added exposure variables for 52 occupation groups, 43 industry groups, and 46 task/tool/chemical scenarios to the data set of OH responses. Across all four agents, we identified possibly exposed task/tool/chemical exposure scenarios in 44-51% of the jobs in possibly exposed occupations. Possibly exposed task/tool/chemical exposure scenarios were found in a nontrivial 9-14% of the jobs not in possibly exposed occupations, suggesting that our process identified important information that would not be captured using occupation alone. Our extraction process was sensitive: for jobs where our extraction of OH responses identified no exposure scenarios and for which the sole source of information was the OH responses, only 0.1% were assessed as possibly exposed to TCE by the expert.

conclusionsOur systematic extraction of OH information found useful information in the task/chemicals/tools responses that was relatively easy to extract and that was not available from the occupational or industry information. The extracted variables can be used as inputs in the development of decision rules, especially for jobs where no additional information, such as job- and industry-specific questionnaires, is available.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCarcinoma, Renal CellCase-Control StudiesData CollectionFemaleHumansIndustryKidney NeoplasmsMaleMetalsMiddle AgedOccupational ExposureOccupationsSolventsSurveys and QuestionnairesMetalsSolventscadmiumchlorinated solventsexposure assessment methodologylead

Identifiers

PMID24590110
PMCPMC4053931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.