Journal article
Comparison of ordinal and nominal classification trees to predict ordinal expert-based occupational exposure estimates in a case-control study
The Annals of occupational hygiene, v 59(3), pp 324-335
Apr 2015
PMID: 25433003
Featured in Collection : UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
Abstract
To evaluate occupational exposures in case-control studies, exposure assessors typically review each job individually to assign exposure estimates. This process lacks transparency and does not provide a mechanism for recreating the decision rules in other studies. In our previous work, nominal (unordered categorical) classification trees (CTs) generally successfully predicted expert-assessed ordinal exposure estimates (i.e. none, low, medium, high) derived from occupational questionnaire responses, but room for improvement remained. Our objective was to determine if using recently developed ordinal CTs would improve the performance of nominal trees in predicting ordinal occupational diesel exhaust exposure estimates in a case-control study.
We used one nominal and four ordinal CT methods to predict expert-assessed probability, intensity, and frequency estimates of occupational diesel exhaust exposure (each categorized as none, low, medium, or high) derived from questionnaire responses for the 14983 jobs in the New England Bladder Cancer Study. To replicate the common use of a single tree, we applied each method to a single sample of 70% of the jobs, using 15% to test and 15% to validate each method. To characterize variability in performance, we conducted a resampling analysis that repeated the sample draws 100 times. We evaluated agreement between the tree predictions and expert estimates using Somers' d, which measures differences in terms of ordinal association between predicted and observed scores and can be interpreted similarly to a correlation coefficient.
From the resampling analysis, compared with the nominal tree, an ordinal CT method that used a quadratic misclassification function and controlled tree size based on total misclassification cost had a slightly better predictive performance that was statistically significant for the frequency metric (Somers' d: nominal tree = 0.61; ordinal tree = 0.63) and similar performance for the probability (nominal = 0.65; ordinal = 0.66) and intensity (nominal = 0.65; ordinal = 0.65) metrics. The best ordinal CT predicted fewer cases of large disagreement with the expert assessments (i.e. no exposure predicted for a job with high exposure and vice versa) compared with the nominal tree across all of the exposure metrics. For example, the percent of jobs with expert-assigned high intensity of exposure that the model predicted as no exposure was 29% for the nominal tree and 22% for the best ordinal tree.
The overall agreements were similar across CT models; however, the use of ordinal models reduced the magnitude of the discrepancy when disagreements occurred. As the best performing model can vary by situation, researchers should consider evaluating multiple CT methods to maximize the predictive performance within their data.
Metrics
Details
- Title
- Comparison of ordinal and nominal classification trees to predict ordinal expert-based occupational exposure estimates in a case-control study
- Creators
- David C Wheeler - 1.Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 830 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23298, USA dcwheels@gmail.comKellie J Archer - 1.Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 830 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23298, USAIgor Burstyn - 2.Drexel University, School of Public Health, Nesbitt Hall, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USAKai Yu - 3.Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892, USAPatricia A Stewart - 4.Stewart Exposure Assessments, LLC, 6045 27th Street North, Arlington, VA 22207, USAJoanne S Colt - 5.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892, USADalsu Baris - 5.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892, USAMargaret R Karagas - 6.Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 1 Medical Center Drive, 7927 Rubin Building, Lebanon NH 03756, USAMolly Schwenn - 7.Maine Cancer Registry, 286 Water Street, 4th Floor, 11 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0011, USAAlison Johnson - 8.Vermont Cancer Registry, Vermont Department of Health, P.O. Box 70, Burlington, VT 05402-0070, USAKarla Armenti - 9.New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, USADebra T Silverman - 5.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892, USAMelissa C Friesen - 5.Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
- Publication Details
- The Annals of occupational hygiene, v 59(3), pp 324-335
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press; England
- Grant note
- Z01 CP10122-19 / NCI NIH HHS
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Environmental and Occupational Health
- Web of Science ID
- WOS:000353056600006
- Scopus ID
- 2-s2.0-84926684169
- Other Identifier
- 991014877771704721
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
InCites Highlights
Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- Web of Science research areas
- Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
- Toxicology