Abstract

Abstract Case-control studies are important sources of information on the possible associations between occupational exposures and disease. One of the main methodologic difficulties is the retrospective assessment of occupational exposures among study subjects. The job-exposure matrix, or JEM, has been proposed as a means of assigning exposure to study subjects, given only information on their job titles. The purpose of the present analysis was to compare the performance of a JEM with a presumably more valid approach, namely, the assessment of exposure by a team of expert hygienists and chemists. The comparison was based on a data set generated by experts in the course of a large cancer case-control study, from which was created a simple JEM. For each of 160 substances, the statistical power of the original (“gold standard”) rating was compared with that of the JEM. For most substances, there was considerable exposure misclassification and consequent loss of power using the JEM. Data are presented to show...

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.