ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2025
OPERAS decision support system versus manual job coding: a quantitative analysis on coding time and inter-coder reliability.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe manual coding of job descriptions is time-consuming, expensive and requires expert knowledge. Decision support systems (DSS) provide a valuable alternative by offering automated suggestions that support decision-making, improving efficiency while allowing manual corrections to ensure reliability. However, this claim has not been proven with expert coders. This study aims to fill this omission by comparing manual with decision-supported coding, using the new DSS OPERAS.
methodsFive expert coders proficient in using the French classification systems for occupations PCS2003 and activity sectors NAF2008 each successively coded two subsets of job descriptions from the CONSTANCES cohort manually and using OPERAS. Subsequently, we assessed coding time and inter-coder reliability of assigning occupation and activity sector codes while accounting for individual differences and the perceived usability of OPERAS, measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS; range 0-100).
resultsOPERAS usage substantially outperformed manual coding for all coders on both coding time and inter-coder reliability. The median job description coding time was 38 s using OPERAS versus 60.8 s while manually coding. Inter-coder reliability (in Cohen's kappa) ranged 0.61-0.70 and 0.56-0.61 for the PCS, while ranging 0.38-0.61 and 0.34-0.61 for the NAF for OPERAS and manual coding, respectively. The average SUS score was 75.5, indicating good usability.
conclusionsCompared with manual coding, using OPERAS as DSS for occupational coding improved coding time and inter-coder reliability. Subsequent comparison studies could use OPERAS' ISCO-88 and ISCO-68 classification models. Consequently, OPERAS facilitates large, harmonised job coding in large-scale occupational health research.
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.