Dataset Information

Using Latent Class Modeling to Jointly Characterize Economic Stress and Multipollutant Exposure.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Work is needed to better understand how joint exposure to environmental and economic factors influence cancer. We hypothesize that environmental exposures vary with socioeconomic status (SES) and urban/rural locations, and areas with minority populations coincide with high economic disadvantage and pollution.

Methods

To model joint exposure to pollution and SES, we develop a latent class mixture model (LCMM) with three latent variables (SES Advantage, SES Disadvantage, and Air Pollution) and compare the LCMM fit with K-means clustering. We ran an ANOVA to test for high exposure levels in non-Hispanic black populations. The analysis is at the census tract level for the state of North Carolina.

Results

The LCMM was a better and more nuanced fit to the data than K-means clustering. Our LCMM had two sublevels (low, high) within each latent class. The worst levels of exposure (high SES disadvantage, low SES advantage, high pollution) are found in 22% of census tracts, while the best levels (low SES disadvantage, high SES advantage, low pollution) are found in 5.7%. Overall, 34.1% of the census tracts exhibit high disadvantage, 66.3% have low advantage, and 59.2% have high mixtures of toxic pollutants. Areas with higher SES disadvantage had significantly higher non-Hispanic black population density (NHBPD; P < 0.001), and NHBPD was higher in areas with higher pollution (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Joint exposure to air toxins and SES varies with rural/urban location and coincides with minority populations.

Impact

Our model can be extended to provide a holistic modeling framework for estimating disparities in cancer survival.See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, "Environmental Carcinogenesis: Pathways to Prevention."

SUBMITTER: Larsen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574902 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe course and different characteristics of acute and posttraumatic stress disorder (ASD, PTSD) in trauma populations are unclear.ObjectiveThe aims were to identify longitudinal trajectories of PTSD, to establish a risk profile for ASD and PTSD based on patients' sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics, and to study the effect of ASD and dissociation on PTSD during 12 months after trauma.MethodPatients completed questionnaires after inclusion and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months afterwards. Trajectories were identified using repeated measures latent class analysis (RMLCA). The risk profile was based on a ranking of importance of each characteristic using Cohen's d effect sizes and odds ratios. The impact of ASD and dissociation on PTSD was examined using logistic regression analyses.ResultsAltogether, 267 patients were included. The mean age was 54.0 (SD = 16.1) and 62% were men. The prevalence rate of ASD was approximately 21.7% at baseline, and 36.1% of trauma patients exhibited PTSD at 12 months after injury. Five trajectories were identified: (1) no PTSD symptoms, (2) mild, (3) moderate, (4) subclinical, and (5) severe PTSD symptoms. These trajectories seemed to remain stable over time. Compared with patients in other trajectories, patients with ASD and (subclinical) PTSD were younger and scored higher on anxiety, depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and trait anxiety. Regarding dissociation symptoms, inability to recall memories about the event was significantly more present than an altered sense of reality, (105 (40.7%) versus 56 (21.7%), p = .031), although that symptom had the strongest likelihood for PTSD. Patients with dissociation were significantly at risk for PTSD than patients without dissociation (OR = 4.82; 95%CI: 1.91-12.25).ConclusionsPsychological factors characterized ASD and trajectories of PTSD during 12 months post-trauma. Healthcare providers who are aware of these findings could early identify patients at risk for ASD and PTSD and refer them for patient-centred interventions.

Project description:Accurate tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been critical in efforts to control its spread. The accuracy of tests for SARS-CoV-2 has been assessed numerous times, usually in reference to a gold standard diagnosis. One major disadvantage of that approach is the possibility of error due to inaccuracy of the gold standard, which is especially problematic for evaluating testing in a real-world surveillance context. We used an alternative approach known as Bayesian latent class modeling (BLCM), which circumvents the need to designate a gold standard by simultaneously estimating the accuracy of multiple tests. We applied this technique to a collection of 1,716 tests of three types applied to 853 individuals on a university campus during a 1-week period in October 2020. We found that reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing of saliva samples performed at a campus facility had higher sensitivity (median, 92.3%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 73.2 to 99.6%) than RT-PCR testing of nasal samples performed at a commercial facility (median, 85.9%; 95% CrI, 54.7 to 99.4%). The reverse was true for specificity, although the specificity of saliva testing was still very high (median, 99.3%; 95% CrI, 98.3 to 99.9%). An antigen test was less sensitive and specific than both of the RT-PCR tests, although the sample sizes with this test were small and the statistical uncertainty was high. These results suggest that RT-PCR testing of saliva samples at a campus facility can be an effective basis for surveillance screening to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a university setting. IMPORTANCE Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been vitally important during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a variety of methods for testing for this virus, and it is important to understand their accuracy in choosing which one might be best suited for a given application. To estimate the accuracy of three different testing methods, we used a data set collected at a university that involved testing the same samples with multiple tests. Unlike most other estimates of test accuracy, we did not assume that one test was perfect but instead allowed for some degree of inaccuracy in all testing methods. We found that molecular tests performed on saliva samples at a university facility were similarly accurate as molecular tests performed on nasal samples at a commercial facility. An antigen test appeared somewhat less accurate than the molecular tests, but there was high uncertainty about that.

Project description:BackgroundSince COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.Research questionDoes the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes?Study design and methodsWe included adult patients (≥ 18 years) positive for laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from a prospective COVID-19 registry database in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. The patients were split into training and testing sets. Using latent class analysis (LCA), we first identified phenotypic clusters of patients with COVID-19 based on demographics, comorbidities, and presenting symptoms. We then identified subphenotypes of hospitalized patients with additional blood biomarker data measured on hospital admission. The associations of phenotypes/subphenotypes and clinical outcomes were investigated. Multivariable prediction models were established to predict assignment to the LCA-defined phenotypes and subphenotypes and then evaluated on an independent testing set.ResultsWe analyzed data for 20,572 patients. Seven phenotypes were identified on the basis of different profiles of presenting COVID-19 symptoms and existing comorbidities, including the following groups: young, no symptoms; young, symptoms; middle-aged, no symptoms; middle-aged, symptoms; middle-aged, comorbidities; old, no symptoms; and old, symptoms. The rates of inpatient hospitalization for the phenotypes were significantly different (P < .001). Five subphenotypes were identified for the subgroup of hospitalized patients, including the following subgroups: young, elevated WBC and platelet counts; middle-aged, lymphopenic with elevated C-reactive protein; middle-aged, hyperinflammatory; old, leukopenic with comorbidities; and old, hyperinflammatory with kidney dysfunction. The hospital mortality and the times from hospitalization to ICU transfer or death were significantly different (P < .001). The models for predicting the LCA-defined phenotypes and subphenotypes showed high discrimination (concordance index, 0.92 and 0.91).InterpretationHypothesis-free LCA-defined phenotypes and subphenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be identified. These may help clinical investigators conduct stratified analyses in clinical trials and assist basic science researchers in characterizing the pathobiology of the spectrum of COVID-19 presentations.