Dataset Information

Validation of a Brief Screening Instrument for Chemical Intolerance in a Large U.S. National Sample.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chemical intolerance (CI) is characterized by multisystem symptoms triggered by low levels of exposure to xenobiotics including chemicals, foods/food additives, and drugs/medications. Prior prevalence estimates vary from 8-33% worldwide. Clinicians and researchers need a brief, practical screening tool for identifying possible chemical intolerance. This large, population-based study describes the validation of a three-item screening questionnaire, the Brief Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (BREESI), against the international reference standard used for assessing chemical intolerance, the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI).

Methods

More than 10,000 people in the U.S. responded to the BREESI and the QEESI in a population-based survey. We calculated the overall prevalence of CI in this sample, as well as by gender, age, and income. Common statistical metrics were used to evaluate the BREESI as a screener for CI against the QEESI.

Results

The prevalence estimate for QEESI-defined chemical intolerance in the U.S. was 20.39% (95% CI 19.63-21.15%). The BREESI had 91.26% sensitivity (95% CI: 89.20-93.04%) and 92.89% specificity (95% CI: 91.77-93.90%). The positive likelihood ratio was 12.83 (95% CI: 11.07-14.88), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08-0.12). Logistic regression demonstrates that the predicted probability of CI increased sharply with each increase in the number of BREESI items endorsed (Odds Ratio: 5.3, 95% CI: 4.90-5.75).

Conclusions

Chemical intolerance may affect one in five people in the U.S. The BREESI is a new, practical instrument for researchers, clinicians, and epidemiologists. As a screening tool, the BREESI offers a high degree of confidence in case ascertainment. We recommend: screen with the BREESI, confirm with the QEESI.

SUBMITTER: Palmer RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8391803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a brief, reliable and valid instrument to screen psychosocial risk among those who are undergoing genetic testing for Adult-Onset Hereditary Disease (AOHD).DesignA prospective two-phase cohort study.Setting5 genetic testing centres for AOHD, such as cancer, Huntington's disease or haemochromatosis, in ambulatory clinics of tertiary hospitals across Canada.Participants141 individuals undergoing genetic testing were approached and consented to the instrument development phase of the study (Phase I). The Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI) developed in Phase I was tested in Phase II for item refinement and validation. A separate cohort of 722 individuals consented to the study, 712 completed the baseline package and 463 completed all follow-up assessments. Most participants were female, at the mid-life stage. Individuals in advanced stages of the illness or with cognitive impairment or a language barrier were excluded.InterventionsPhase I: GPRI items were generated from (1) a review of the literature, (2) input from genetic counsellors and (3) phase I participants. Phase II: further item refinement and validation were conducted with a second cohort of participants who completed the GPRI at baseline and were followed for psychological distress 1-month postgenetic testing results.Primary and secondary outcome measuresGPRI, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and Impact of Event Scale (IES).ResultsThe final 20-item GPRI had a high reliability-Cronbach's ? at 0.81. The construct validity was supported by high correlations between GPRI and BSI and IES. The predictive value was demonstrated by a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 plotting GPRI against follow-up assessments using HAM-D and HAM-A.ConclusionsWith a cut-off score of 50, GPRI identified 84% of participants who displayed distress postgenetic testing results, supporting its potential usefulness in a clinical setting.

Project description:BackgroundThere are presently hundreds of online databases hosting millions of chemical compounds and associated data. As a result of the number of cheminformatics software tools that can be used to produce the data, subtle differences between the various cheminformatics platforms, as well as the naivety of the software users, there are a myriad of issues that can exist with chemical structure representations online. In order to help facilitate validation and standardization of chemical structure datasets from various sources we have delivered a freely available internet-based platform to the community for the processing of chemical compound datasets.ResultsThe chemical validation and standardization platform (CVSP) both validates and standardizes chemical structure representations according to sets of systematic rules. The chemical validation algorithms detect issues with submitted molecular representations using pre-defined or user-defined dictionary-based molecular patterns that are chemically suspicious or potentially requiring manual review. Each identified issue is assigned one of three levels of severity - Information, Warning, and Error - in order to conveniently inform the user of the need to browse and review subsets of their data. The validation process includes validation of atoms and bonds (e.g., making aware of query atoms and bonds), valences, and stereo. The standard form of submission of collections of data, the SDF file, allows the user to map the data fields to predefined CVSP fields for the purpose of cross-validating associated SMILES and InChIs with the connection tables contained within the SDF file. This platform has been applied to the analysis of a large number of data sets prepared for deposition to our ChemSpider database and in preparation of data for the Open PHACTS project. In this work we review the results of the automated validation of the DrugBank dataset, a popular drug and drug target database utilized by the community, and ChEMBL 17 data set. CVSP web site is located at http://cvsp.chemspider.com/.ConclusionA platform for the validation and standardization of chemical structure representations of various formats has been developed and made available to the community to assist and encourage the processing of chemical structure files to produce more homogeneous compound representations for exchange and interchange between online databases. While the CVSP platform is designed with flexibility inherent to the rules that can be used for processing the data we have produced a recommended rule set based on our own experiences with the large data sets such as DrugBank, ChEMBL, and data sets from ChemSpider.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals' social networks exert a strong influence on alcohol use, but valid assessment of network drinking behavior is typically lengthy and high in participant burden. The aim of this study was to validate the Brief Alcohol Social Density Assessment (BASDA), an efficient measure of perceived alcohol use within a person's social network, in a sample of adult drinkers from the general community. Specifically, the convergent, criterion-related, incremental validity and internal validity were investigated by examining the BASDA in relation to other established measures of drinking motives, weekly drinking level, and severity of involvement.MethodsParticipants were 903 (56% female) adults who reported drinking in the last year and who completed the BASDA, the Drinking Motives Questionnaire, the Daily Drinking Questionnaire, and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).ResultsSignificant positive correlations were found between the BASDA and drinking motives, drinking quantity, and the AUDIT (rs = 0.21 to 0.51, ps < 0.001), providing support for convergent validity. There was a significantly higher BASDA score for those scoring at or above an AUDIT cutoff for hazardous drinking (p < 0.001), providing support for criterion-related validity. Finally, beyond motives and covariates, the BASDA was significantly associated with total AUDIT score (ΔR2 = 0.09, p < 0.001), indicating its additive contribution and providing support for incremental validity. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed excellent fit, and all items significantly loaded onto a single factor (p < 0.0001), providing evidence of internal validity. The resulting alcohol social density latent variable was significantly and robustly associated with drinks per week and AUDIT total score.ConclusionsThese findings provide further support for the BASDA as a valid and efficient measure of social network alcohol density for understanding social influences on alcohol misuse.

Project description:Introduction The National Cancer Institute Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration includes eight clinical trials testing smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening (LCS). This investigation compared pooled participant baseline demographic and smoking characteristics of seven SCALE trials to LCS-eligible smokers in three U.S. nationally representative surveys. Methods Baseline variables (age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, income, cigarettes per day, and time to the first cigarette) from 3614 smokers enrolled in SCALE trials as of September 2020 were compared with pooled data from the Tobacco Use Supplement–Current Population Survey (2018–2019), National Health Interview Survey (2017–2018), and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (wave 4, 2016–2017) using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2013 (N = 4803) and 2021 (N = 8604) LCS eligibility criteria. Results SCALE participants have similar average age as the U.S. LCS–eligible smokers using the 2013 criteria but are 2.8 years older using the 2021 criteria (p < 0.001). SCALE has a lower proportion of men, a higher proportion of Blacks, and slightly higher education and income levels than national surveys (p < 0.001). SCALE participants smoke an average of 17.9 cigarettes per day (SD 9.2) compared with 22.4 (SD 9.3) using the 2013 criteria and 19.6 (SD 9.7) using the 2021 criteria (p < 0.001). The distribution of time to the first cigarette differs between SCALE and the national surveys (p < 0.001), but both indicate high levels of nicotine dependence. Conclusions SCALE participants smoke slightly less than the LCS-eligible smokers in the general population, perhaps related to socioeconomic status or race. Other demographic variables reveal small but statistically significant differences, likely of limited clinical relevance with respect to tobacco treatment outcomes. SCALE trial results should be applicable to LCS-eligible smokers from the U.S. population.