ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2023
Evaluation of the updated SOCcer v2 algorithm for coding free-text job descriptions in three epidemiologic studies.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of using the SOCcer automated occupation auto-coding algorithm to assist expert coding of job descriptions.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- OPERAS decision support system versus manual job coding: a quantitative analysis on coding time and inter-coder reliability.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Article
- Invited Perspective: How Far Have We Come? Revisiting a 2009 Report on Occupational Cancer Research Recommendations.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesComputer-assisted coding of job descriptions to standardized occupational classification codes facilitates evaluating occupational risk factors in epidemiologic studies by reducing the number of jobs needing expert coding. We evaluated the performance of the 2nd version of SOCcer, a computerized algorithm designed to code free-text job descriptions to US SOC-2010 system based on free-text job titles and work tasks, to evaluate its accuracy.
methodsSOCcer v2 was updated by expanding the training data to include jobs from several epidemiologic studies and revising the algorithm to account for nonlinearity and incorporate interactions. We evaluated the agreement between codes assigned by experts and the highest scoring code (a measure of confidence in the algorithm-predicted assignment) from SOCcer v1 and v2 in 14,714 jobs from three epidemiology studies. We also linked exposure estimates for 258 agents in the job-exposure matrix CANJEM to the expert and SOCcer v2-assigned codes and compared those estimates using kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients. Analyses were stratified by SOCcer score, score distance between the top two scoring codes from SOCcer, and features from CANJEM.
resultsSOCcer's v2 agreement at the 6-digit level was 50%, compared to 44% in v1, and was similar for the three studies (38%-45%). Overall agreement for v2 at the 2-, 3-, and 5-digit was 73%, 63%, and 56%, respectively. For v2, median ICCs for the probability and intensity metrics were 0.67 (IQR 0.59-0.74) and 0.56 (IQR 0.50-0.60), respectively. The agreement between the expert and SOCcer assigned codes linearly increased with SOCcer score. The agreement also improved when the top two scoring codes had larger differences in score.
conclusionsOverall agreement with SOCcer v2 applied to job descriptions from North American epidemiologic studies was similar to the agreement usually observed between two experts. SOCcer's score predicted agreement with experts and can be used to prioritize jobs for expert review.
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.