ArticlePloS one2018
Shared and unshared exposure measurement error in occupational cohort studies and their effects on statistical inference in proportional hazards models.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing environmental epidemiologic methods to confront the cancer burden.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Occupational Radiation Exposure and Validity of National Dosimetry Registry among Korean Interventional Radiologists.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Examining the robustness of observational associations to model, measurement and sampling uncertainty with the vibration of effects framework.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Ischaemic heart and cerebrovascular disease mortality in uranium enrichment workers.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2021Article
- Analysis of Cataract in Relationship to Occupational Radiation Dose Accounting for Dosimetric Uncertainties in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists.Radiation research · 2020Article
- A Bayesian hierarchical approach to account for left-censored and missing radiation doses prone to classical measurement error when analyzing lung cancer mortality due to γ-ray exposure in the French cohort of uranium miners.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020Article
- Exposure Measurement Error in Air Pollution Studies: The Impact of Shared, Multiplicative Measurement Error on Epidemiological Health Risk Estimates.Air quality, atmosphere, & health · 2020Article
- PUMA - pooled uranium miners analysis: cohort profile.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2020Article
- Methods to account for uncertainties in exposure assessment in studies of environmental exposures.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Review
- Exposure measurement error in air pollution studies: A framework for assessing shared, multiplicative measurement error in ensemble learning estimates of nitrogen oxides.Environment international · 2019Article
- A cautionary comment on the generation of Berkson error in epidemiological studies.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure measurement error represents one of the most important sources of uncertainty in epidemiology. When exposure uncertainty is not or only poorly accounted for, it can lead to biased risk estimates and a distortion of the shape of the exposure-response relationship. In occupational cohort studies, the time-dependent nature of exposure and changes in the method of exposure assessment may create complex error structures. When a method of group-level exposure assessment is used, individual worker practices and the imprecision of the instrument used to measure the average exposure for a group of workers may give rise to errors that are shared between workers, within workers or both. In contrast to unshared measurement error, the effects of shared errors remain largely unknown. Moreover, exposure uncertainty and magnitude of exposure are typically highest for the earliest years of exposure. We conduct a simulation study based on exposure data of the French cohort of uranium miners to compare the effects of shared and unshared exposure uncertainty on risk estimation and on the shape of the exposure-response curve in proportional hazards models. Our results indicate that uncertainty components shared within workers cause more bias in risk estimation and a more severe attenuation of the exposure-response relationship than unshared exposure uncertainty or exposure uncertainty shared between individuals. These findings underline the importance of careful characterisation and modeling of exposure uncertainty in observational studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.