Decisions about how best to describe the magnitude or timing of exposure are challenging in most every epidemiological study because the number of possible representations of any epidemiologic relationship is large, but knowledge is limited, This paper seeks to promote a discussion of problems surrounding the selection of indices of exposure for epidemiologic studies in occupational health.
Five themes are considered : 1) general approaches to selecting exposure indicators ; 2) measurement error ; 3) exposure-time or latency, analysis, 4) dosimetrie models, and 5) philosophical issues in exposure-response modeling.
The predominant methods for selecting exposure indicators are based on operational criteria : one strategy (the « maximum estimate » criterion) is to choose indicators that maximize the observed association of exposure and disease : a second is to select ones that maximize the goodness-of-fit of statistical models (the « best fit » criterion).
Results based on these approaches can be contradictory.
Recent research shows the maximum estimate criterion is not justified as a general model-building strategy.
It is reliable only with simple regressions with random, nondifferential error in the single predictor variable or single 2 x 2 tables with nondifferential exposure misclassification.
When measurement error is systematic or confounders are measured with error, the maximum-estimate criterion is inappropriate. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Méthode étude, Epidémiologie, Détermination, Exposition professionnelle, Médecine travail, Indicateur, Critère sélection, Modélisation, Erreur mesure, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Investigation method, Epidemiology, Determination, Occupational exposure, Occupational medicine, Indicator, Selection criterion, Modeling, Measurement error, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 99-0289069
Code Inist : 002B30B04. Création : 16/11/1999.