Global Epidemiology最新文献

Background

The spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Peru has been reported at the regional level, few studies have evaluated its spread at the provincial level, in which the mechanisms could be different.

Methods

We conducted an analytical, cross-sectional, multistage observational population study to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-COV-2 at the provincial and urban/rural levels in a high-altitude setting. The sampling unit was the household, including a randomly selected family member. Sampling was performed using a data collection sheet on clinical and epidemiological variables. Chemiluminescence tests were used to detect total anti-SARS-COV-2 antibodies (IgG and IgM simultaneously). The percentages were adjusted to the sampling design.

Results

The overall prevalence in the region of Cusco was 25.9%, with considerably different prevalence between the 13 provinces (from 15.9% in Acomayo to 40.1% in Canchis) and between rural (21.1%) and urban (31.7%) areas. In multivariable model, living in a rural area was a protective factor (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.76).

Conclusions

Geographic diversity and population density determine different prevalence rates, typically lower in rural areas, possibly due to natural social distancing or limited interaction with people at risk.

Drawing sound causal inferences from observational data is often challenging for both authors and reviewers. This paper discusses the design and application of an Artificial Intelligence Causal Research Assistant (AIA) that seeks to help authors improve causal inferences and conclusions drawn from epidemiological data in health risk assessments. The AIA-assisted review process provides structured reviews and recommendations for improving the causal reasoning, analyses and interpretations made in scientific papers based on epidemiological data. Causal analysis methodologies range from earlier Bradford-Hill considerations to current causal directed acyclic graph (DAG) and related models. AIA seeks to make these methods more accessible and useful to researchers. AIA uses an external script (a “Causal AI Booster” (CAB) program based on classical AI concepts of slot-filling in frames organized into task hierarchies to complete goals) to guide Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's LaMDA (Bard), to systematically review manuscripts and create both (a) recommendations for what to do to improve analyses and reporting; and (b) explanations and support for the recommendations. Review tables and summaries are completed systematically by the LLM in order. For example, recommendations for how to state and caveat causal conclusions in the Abstract and Discussion sections reflect previous analyses of the Study Design and Data Analysis sections. This work illustrates how current AI can contribute to reviewing and providing constructive feedback on research documents. We believe that such AI-assisted review shows promise for enhancing the quality of causal reasoning and exposition in epidemiological studies. It suggests the potential for effective human-AI collaboration in scientific authoring and review processes.

This article is a response to an off-the-record discussion that I had at an international meeting of epidemiologists more than decade ago. It centered on a concern, perhaps widely spread, that adjustment for exposure misclassification can induce a false positive result. I trace the possible history of this supposition and test it in a simulated case-control study under the assumption of non-differential misclassification of binary exposure, in which a Bayesian adjustment is applied. Probabilistic bias analysis is also briefly considered. The main conclusion is that adjustment for the presumed non-differential exposure misclassification of dichotomous does not “induce” positive associations, especially if the focus of the interpretation of the result is taken away from the point estimate. The misconception about positive bias induced by adjustment for exposure misclassification, if more clearly explained during the training of epidemiologists, may promote appropriate (and wider) use of the adjustment techniques. The simple message that can be derived from this paper is: “Exposure misclassification as a tractable problem that deserves much more attention than just a typical qualitative throw-away discussion”.

Air pollution accountability studies examine the relationship(s) between an intervention, regulation, or event and the resulting downstream impacts, if any, on emissions, exposure, and/or health. The sequence of events has been schematically described as an accountability chain. Here, we update the existing framework to capture real-life complexities and to highlight important factors that fall outside the linear chain. This new “accountability web” is intended to convey the intricacies associated with conducting an accountability study to various audiences, including researchers, policy makers, and stakeholders. We also identify data considerations for planning and completing a robust accountability study, including those relevant to novel and innovative air pollution and exposure data. Finally, we present a series of recommendations for the accountability research community that can serve as a guide for the next generation of accountability studies.

Exposure measurement error is a pervasive problem for epidemiology research projects designed to provide valid and precise statistical evidence supporting postulated exposure-disease relationships of interest. The purpose of this commentary is to highlight an important real-life example of this exposure measurement error problem and to provide a simple and useful diagnostic tool for physicians and their patients that corrects for the exposure measurement error. More specifically, prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is a widely used measure for guiding future treatment options for patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Numerous papers have been published claiming that a low calculated PSADT value (denoted $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$) is predictive of metastasis and premature death from prostate cancer. Unfortunately, none of these papers have adjusted for the measurement error in $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$, an estimator that is typically computed using the popular Memorial Sloan Kettering website very often visited by both physicians and their patients. For this website, the estimator $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ of the true (but unknown) PSADT for a patient (denoted PSADT^∗) is computed as the natural log of 2 (i.e., 0.6931) divided by the estimated slope of the straight-line regression of the natural log of PSA (in ng/mL) on time. We utilize $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ to derive an expression for the probability that the unknown PSADT^∗ for a patient is below a specified value C ($>0$) of concern to both the physician and the patient. This probability is easy to interpret and takes into account the fact that $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ is a statistical estimator with variability. This variability introduces measurement error, namely, the difference between a computed value $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ and the true, but unknown, value PSADT^∗. We have developed an Excel calculator that, once the [time, ln(PSA)] values are entered, outputs both the value of $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ and the desired probability. In addition, we discuss problematic statistical issues attendant with PSADT^∗ estimation typically based on at most three or four PSA values. We strongly recommend the use of this probability when physicians are discussing $\widehat{\text{PSADT}}$ values and associated treatment options with their patients. And, we stress that future epidemiology research projects involving PSA doubling time should take into account the measurement error problem highlighted in this Comment