Demographic analysis of Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIH) with the use of survival analysis techniques

Objective. The goal of this study is to characterize the current workforce of CIHs, the lengths of professional practice careers of the past and current CIHs.^ Methods. This is a secondary data analysis of data compiled from all of the nearly 50 annual roster listings of the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) for Certified Industrial Hygienists active in each year since 1960. Survival analysis was performed as a technique to measure the primary outcome of interest. The technique which was involved in this study was the Kaplan-Meier method for estimating the survival function.^ Study subjects: The population to be studied is all Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs). A CIH is defined by the ABIH as an individual who has achieved the minimum requirements for education, working experience and through examination, has demonstrated a minimum level of knowledge and competency in the prevention of occupational illnesses. ^ Results. A Cox-proportional hazards model analysis was performed by different start-time cohorts of CIHs. In this model we chose cohort 1 as the reference cohort. The estimated relative risk of the event (defined as retirement, or absent from 5 consecutive years of listing) occurred for CIHs for cohorts 2,3,4,5 relative to cohort 1 is 0.385, 0.214, 0.234, 0.299 relatively. The result show that cohort 2 (CIHs issued from 1970-1980) has the lowest hazard ratio which indicates the lowest retirement rate.^ Conclusion. The manpower of CIHs (still actively practicing up to the end of 2009) increased tremendously starting in 1980 and grew into a plateau in recent decades. This indicates that the supply and demand of the profession may have reached equilibrium. More demographic information and variables are needed to actually predict the future number of CIHs needed. ^

New algorithms for automated phylogenetic reconstruction using artificial intelligence and data mining techniques

Academic and industrial research in the late 90s have brought about an exponential explosion of DNA sequence data. Automated expert systems are being created to help biologists to extract patterns, trends and links from this ever-deepening ocean of information. Two such systems aimed on retrieving and subsequently utilizing phylogenetically relevant information have been developed in this dissertation, the major objective of which was to automate the often difficult and confusing phylogenetic reconstruction process. ^ Popular phylogenetic reconstruction methods, such as distance-based methods, attempt to find an optimal tree topology (that reflects the relationships among related sequences and their evolutionary history) by searching through the topology space. Various compromises between the fast (but incomplete) and exhaustive (but computationally prohibitive) search heuristics have been suggested. An intelligent compromise algorithm that relies on a flexible “beam” search principle from the Artificial Intelligence domain and uses the pre-computed local topology reliability information to adjust the beam search space continuously is described in the second chapter of this dissertation. ^ However, sometimes even a (virtually) complete distance-based method is inferior to the significantly more elaborate (and computationally expensive) maximum likelihood (ML) method. In fact, depending on the nature of the sequence data in question either method might prove to be superior. Therefore, it is difficult (even for an expert) to tell a priori which phylogenetic reconstruction method—distance-based, ML or maybe maximum parsimony (MP)—should be chosen for any particular data set. ^ A number of factors, often hidden, influence the performance of a method. For example, it is generally understood that for a phylogenetically “difficult” data set more sophisticated methods (e.g., ML) tend to be more effective and thus should be chosen. However, it is the interplay of many factors that one needs to consider in order to avoid choosing an inferior method (potentially a costly mistake, both in terms of computational expenses and in terms of reconstruction accuracy.) ^ Chapter III of this dissertation details a phylogenetic reconstruction expert system that selects a superior proper method automatically. It uses a classifier (a Decision Tree-inducing algorithm) to map a new data set to the proper phylogenetic reconstruction method. ^