4.6 Article

Incident Ischemic Heart Disease After Long-Term Occupational Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter: Accounting for 2 Forms of Survivor Bias

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 183, 期 9, 页码 861-868

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv218

关键词

epidemiologic methods; occupational epidemiology; survivor bias

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Institute of Aging [R01-AG026291-01]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [R01OH009939-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about the heart disease risks associated with occupational, rather than traffic-related, exposure to particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 A mu m or less (PM2.5). We examined long-term exposure to PM2.5 in cohorts of aluminum smelters and fabrication workers in the United States who were followed for incident ischemic heart disease from 1998 to 2012, and we addressed 2 forms of survivor bias. Left truncation bias was addressed by restricting analyses to the subcohort hired after the start of follow up. Healthy worker survivor bias, which is characterized by time-varying confounding that is affected by prior exposure, was documented only in the smelters and required the use of marginal structural Cox models. When comparing always-exposed participants above the 10th percentile of annual exposure with those below, the hazard ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 2.52) and 3.95 (95% CI: 0.87, 18.00) in the full and restricted subcohorts of smelter workers, respectively. In the fabrication stratum, hazard ratios based on conditional Cox models were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.02) and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.37) per 1 mg/m(3)-year in the full and restricted subcohorts, respectively. Long-term exposure to occupational PM2.5 was associated with a higher risk of ischemic heart disease among aluminum manufacturing workers, particularly in smelters, after adjustment for survivor bias.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据