ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2018
Bayesian Correction for Exposure Misclassification and Evolution of Evidence in Two Studies of the Association Between Maternal Occupational Exposure to Asthmagens and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Review in Current environmental health reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey of practices of handling exposure measurement errors in modern epidemiology: are the best practices in statistics being adopted by epidemiologists?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Advice on better utilization of validation data to adjust odds ratios for differential exposure misclassification (recall bias).Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Does adjustment for non-differential misclassification of dichotomous exposure induce positive bias if there is no true association?Global epidemiology · 2024Article
- Prerequisite for Imputing Non-detects among Airborne Samples in OSHA's IMIS Databank: Prediction of Sample's Volume.Annals of work exposures and health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewInference in epidemiologic studies is plagued by exposure misclassification. Several methods exist to correct for misclassification error. One approach is to use point estimates for the sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) of the tool used for exposure assessment. Unfortunately, we typically do not know the Sn and Sp with certainty. Bayesian methods for exposure misclassification correction allow us to model this uncertainty via distributions for Sn and Sp. These methods have been applied in epidemiologic literature, but are not considered a mainstream approach, especially in occupational epidemiology. RECENT
findingsHere, we illustrate an occupational epidemiology application of a Bayesian approach to correct for the differential misclassification error generated by estimating occupational exposures from job codes using a job exposure matrix (JEM). We argue that analyses accounting for exposure misclassification should become more commonplace in the literature.
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.