ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Advancing occupational exposure models: insights from a case study.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently used models in occupational exposure assessment are mostly mechanistic-based and their performance varies. The usage of more advanced modeling approaches such as machine learning (ML) or hybrid modeling approaches such as Bayesian Networks could improve accuracy of exposure predictions. Within this study, a case study was conducted where 5 different ML or hybrid modeling approaches were used to redevelop the "asbestos removal exposure assessment tool," an existing mechanistic exposure model, and their performance was compared. Multiple Linear Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machines, Bayesian Network, and Neural Network models were developed using the same dataset and model determinants used to develop the mechanistic model. Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Machines performed best with regards to accuracy, followed by Bayesian Network, Multiple Linear Regression, the original model, and Neural Network. Such models show a promise for the development of more accurate models, but their limitations need to be considered before they can be implemented in a regulatory context. For these models, a trade-off exists where transparency in decision-making is traded against accuracy. Hybrid models such as Bayesian Networks might be a solution for this trade-off as expert knowledge and data-driven approaches are combined in a transparent model.
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.