Sentence examples for exposure weighting from inspiring English sources

To account for the cumulative health effects of smoke on medical condition and address potential lag in seeking emergency care from smoke exposure, a simple truncated half-Gaussian cumulative-lag exposure weighting kernel was introduced on the fire PM10 variable.

We assessed exposure for ≥10 years in childhood plus summed mean years of adult exposure, weighting adult home exposure three times more heavily, based on the estimate of time spent at home compared with at work.

Using the generic cumulative exposure metric (across all minor sectors) with the 0, 1, 2 exposure weighting scheme produced a statistically significant excess risk of breast cancer; 10 years in a high-exposed job had an associated 29% increase (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) (Table 6, model 1).

In contrast to the exposure time window analyses presented above, which impose a piecewise constant model to describe temporal variation in exposure effects, the Armitage Doll model implies a smooth time-varying exposure weighting function that jointly describes age at exposure and latency effects.

If individual sun exposure was collected over different time periods, we calculated the average exposure weighting for years of exposure in each time period.

Nine parameters were assigned to W A, representing the exposure weighting for the age groups 0 4, 5 15, 16 19, 20 29, 30 39, 40 49, 50 59, 60 64 and 65+, with the age group 20 29 years chosen as the baseline category.

Analyses by cumulative weighted years of exposure (weights for unexposed, probably exposed, and definitely exposed groups were 1, 30, and 100) showed rate ratios of 1.0 (138 observed), 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9 1.8; 42 observed), and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5 1.2; 21 observed).

The values of w 3 and w 4 are chosen at 0.1, making the total exposure weight equal to 0.2.

Even though there were no significant weight changes over time among groups after MPXV exposure, weight was significantly different between survivors and non-survivors regardless of dose (P<0.0001) (Figure 1D).

Crump reported that analyses using a simple metric of cumulative exposure fitted these data better than analyses using those exposure weights (Crump 1996).

In the present paper, rather than assigning a set of exposure weights based on patterns observed in a study of radiation exposure effects, the method of exposure time window analysis was used.