ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2025
Evaluation of the validity of a perfluorooctane sulfonic acid exposure reconstruction using a measured serum concentration among workers with a wide range of exposure.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies among workers with a wide range of exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances inform risk assessments. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, was recently examined in relation to mortality and cancer incidence in an occupationally exposed population by Alexander et al. in 2024. In that study, cumulative occupational exposure (mg/m3 PFOS-equivalents in air) was reconstructed using a job-exposure matrix and individual work history. While the exposure reconstruction had good face validity, an assessment of its performance in relation to serum PFOS levels would allow improved interpretation of the occupational epidemiology findings.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the validity of the exposure reconstruction used by Alexander et al. (2024).
methodsA previous study by Olsen et al. (2003) measured serum PFOS levels in 1998 for 260 workers and because these workers were included in the epidemiologic study by Alexander et al. (2024), the study reported herein compared serum PFOS levels to those predicted using a simple compartmental pharmacokinetic model.
resultsThe Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed and pharmacokinetic model-predicted serum PFOS concentration was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.84). The median ratio of predicted to observed serum concentrations was 12 (i.e. actual exposure was significantly less than predicted). The predicted serum PFOS concentrations were not sensitive to the parameters used in the pharmacokinetic model other than exposure concentration or absorption.
conclusionsThe model did not predict absolute exposure well, probably because of personal protective equipment use not being accounted for and absorption of PFOS or precursors being lower than modeled. On the other hand, the model did a reasonably good job of ranking the workers' exposure, thus classification of workers according to relative amount of cumulative PFOS-equivalents was reasonably accurate in the study by Alexander et al. (2024) when validated using the measured serum PFOS data.
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.