kitarist -> RE: Toxic dust (Apr. 13 2019 19:44:58)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JasonM I can’t read the PubMed article. Over how long were the subjects exposed to dust? Link to free pdf : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ijc.31015 Since this is statistical study using census data, it should be read more like it is about increased risks by profession. The way they calculate cumulative exposure is as follows: Take the proportion of workers in a profession who have annual exposure to wood dust which is at least 0.1mg/m^3 on average, over their entire work life, and multiply that by the number of years this went on. So if you want to roughly try to figure out something, you would have to come up with (A) annual mean wood dust concentration (mg wood dust per cubic metre) average for the entire work period, and (B) years working, and multiply A and B. A*B is what they display in the second column e.g. with 28.82 or more for "High" cumulative exposure. The way to read the Hazard ratio is that they take the ratio of Cases:Controls for "No exposure", call it "1", and then check how many times higher is the ratio by exposure category, compared to that of "no exposure". Oh, these are incidences after a 10-yr latent period. For example, for the high category, a hazard ratio of 28.86 means the nasal adenocarcinoma cancer is 28.86 times more frequent in that category than in the "no exposure" category.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|