Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36975192›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2023

Prerequisite for Imputing Non-detects among Airborne Samples in OSHA's IMIS Databank: Prediction of Sample's Volume.

Igor Burstyn, Philippe Sarazin, George Luta, Melissa C Friesen, Laurel Kincl, Jérôme Lavoué

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Igor BurstynDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Nesbitt Hall Room 614, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7153-4478
Philippe SarazinChemical and Biological Hazards Prevention, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montréal, Québec H3A 3C2, Canada.
George LutaDepartment of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Melissa C FriesenOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20850, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1695-3282
Laurel KinclCollege of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
Jérôme LavouéDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4950-5475

Funding

Occupational Exposure AssessmentZIACP010122 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI FRIESEN, MELISSA · 2009 to 2025
$8.6M
STUDIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER--OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTZ01CP010122 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI DOSEMECI, MUSTAFA · 1996 to 2008
$83k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 CP010122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe US Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) contains workplace measurements collected by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspectors. Its use for research is limited by the lack of record of a value for the limit of detection (LOD) associated with non-detected measurements, which should be used to set censoring point in statistical analysis. We aimed to remedy this by developing a predictive model of the volume of air sampled (V) for the non-detected results of airborne measurements, to then estimate the LOD using the instrument detection limit (IDL), as IDL/V.

methodsWe obtained the Chemical Exposure Health Data from OSHA's central laboratory in Salt Lake City that partially overlaps IMIS and contains information on V. We used classification and regression trees (CART) to develop a predictive model of V for all measurements where the two datasets overlapped. The analysis was restricted to 69 chemical agents with at least 100 non-detected measurements, and calculated sampling air flow rates consistent with workplace measurement practices; undefined types of inspections were excluded, leaving 412,201/413,515 records. CART models were fitted on randomly selected 70% of the data using 10-fold cross-validation and validated on the remaining data. A separate CART model was fitted to styrene data.

resultsSampled air volume had a right-skewed distribution with a mean of 357 l, a median (M) of 318, and ranged from 0.040 to 1868 l. There were 173,131 measurements described as non-detects (42% of the data). For the non-detects, the V tended to be greater (M = 378 l) than measurements characterized as either 'short-term' (M = 218 l) or 'long-term' (M = 297 l). The CART models were complex and not easy to interpret, but substance, industry, and year were among the top three most important classifiers. They predicted V well overall (Pearson correlation (r) = 0.73, P < 0.0001; Lin's concordance correlation (rc) = 0.69) and among records captured as non-detects in IMIS (r = 0.66, P < 0.0001l; rc = 0.60). For styrene, CART built on measurements for all agents predicted V among 569 non-detects poorly (r = 0.15; rc = 0.04), but styrene-specific CART predicted it well (r = 0.87, P < 0.0001; rc = 0.86). DISCUSSION: Among the limitations of our work is the fact that samples may have been collected on different workers and processes within each inspection, each with its own V. Furthermore, we lack measurement-level predictors because classifiers were captured at the inspection level. We did not study all substances that may be of interest and did not use the information that substances measured on the same sampling media should have the same V. We must note that CART models tend to over-fit data and their predictions depend on the selected data, as illustrated by contrasting predictions created using all data vs. limited to styrene.

conclusionsWe developed predictive models of sampled air volume that should enable the calculation of LOD for non-detects in IMIS. Our predictions may guide future work on handling non-detects in IMIS, although it is advisable to develop separate predictive models for each substance, industry, and year of interest, while also considering other factors, such as whether the measurement evaluated long-term or short-term exposure.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureHumansIndustryStyrenesUnited StatesUnited States Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationWorkplaceStyrenesairborne exposureexposure assessmentexposure databaseleft-censored distributionlimit of detection

Identifiers

PMID36975192
PMCPMC10324645

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.