Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25138292›Full record

ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology

Rethinking cumulative exposure in epidemiology, again.

Frank de Vocht, Igor Burstyn, Nuthchyawach Sanguanchaiyakrit

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Understanding Training Load as Exposure and Dose.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Lung function and paper dust exposure among workers in a soft tissue paper mill.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Frank de Vocht1] School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK [2] Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre for Epidemiology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Igor BurstynDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nuthchyawach Sanguanchaiyakrit1] Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre for Epidemiology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK [2] Occupational Safety and Health Standard Development Group, Occupational Safety and Health Bureau, Department of Labour protection and Welfare, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of cumulative exposure, the product of intensity and duration, has enjoyed great popularity in epidemiology of chronic diseases despite numerous known caveats in its interpretation. We briefly review the history of use of cumulative exposure in epidemiology and propose an alternative method for relating time-integrated exposures to health risks. We argue, as others before us have, that cumulative exposure metrics obscures the interplay of exposure intensity and duration. We propose to use a computationally simple alternative in which duration and intensity of exposure are modelled as a main effect and their interaction, cumulative exposure, only be added if there is evidence of deviation from this additive model. We also consider the Lubin-Caporaso model of interplay of exposure intensity and duration. The impact of measurement error in intensity on model selection was also examined. The value of this conceptualization is demonstrated using a simulation study and further illustrated in the context of respiratory health and occupational exposure to latex dust. We demonstrate why cumulative exposure has been so popular because the cumulative exposure metric per se gives a robust answer to the existence of an association, regardless of the underlying true mechanism of disease. Treating cumulative exposure as the interaction of main effects of exposure duration and intensity enables epidemiologists to derive more information about mechanism of disease then fitting cumulative exposure metric by itself, and without the need to collect additional data. We propose that the practice of fitting duration, intensity and cumulative exposure separately to epidemiologic data should lead to conceptualization of cumulative exposure as interaction of main effects of duration and intensity of exposure.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsAsthma, OccupationalComputer SimulationDustEnvironmental MonitoringGloves, ProtectiveHumansLatexOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureRespiratory Function TestsRisk FactorsRubberSurveys and QuestionnairesThailandDustLatexRubber

Identifiers

PMID25138292

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.