Use the information in Table 2 in the article to complete this contingency table. Compare people with 40+ years of expos

[answerhappygod]

Use the information in Table 2 in the article to complete this contingency table. Compare people with 40+ years of exposure (exposed group) to those with < 10 years of exposure (unexposed group). The outcome is death. You will need to format the 2x2 table as shown in class and have accurate and specific column and row labels to receive full credit.
The relationship between duration of asbestos exposure and death
# of deaths
Person-years
Incidence Rate
Age (years)
40+
86
694
86/694 = 0.123
< 10
87
1415
87/2109 = 0.061
Total
173
2109
Calculations and Interpretations
Calculate attributable risk. Write an interpretation for this attributable risk.
Attributable proportion among the total population = 100 ×Rtotal - Runexposed/Rtotal
R = risk or rate for the population
100 ×173-1936/173= -176300/173 or -1019.075
Based off these calculations, -% of incidence of deaths among British asbestos workers in this population is attributable to how long they were exposed to asbestos.
Calculate the rate ratio. Write an interpretation for this rate ratio.
RR = Rexposed /Runexposed RR = 173/1936= 0.089
Those who were exposed to asbestos had a 0.089% of dying compared to those who were not exposed to asbestos.
Discussion. Your work will be graded on content (2 points) and professional writing (1 point). The target audience for this information is your classmates (so you can use more technical language than for a plain English description).
Briefly discuss 2 benefits (or strengths) of using a cohort study for this investigation.
Using a cohort study for this investigation would be useful because the effects of the asbestos can be examined and a cohort study can also collect specific exposure data. Calculating incidence rates will also be easier because individuals who already have the disease will be excluded at baseline.
Briefly describe (do not just list) 2 potential sources of bias in this study (not just for cohort studies in general).
One potential source of bias in this study could be excluding follow-up from 1971 to 1977, as the linkage to the GB Asbestosis Register was only able to be performed from 1978 and on. There could also potentially be a recall bias in this study. This is because the asbestos regulations changed over time, causing the inclusion criteria for the GB Asbestos survey.
I've solved the answers here, can someone double check them please? Thank you!!
Table 2 Media latey and crude the formatery ang British (1978. 2001) Clarich Ned Per years Median lamy (95 CD Cree C ATRA rati Tou $14 NA NA (MAL 272) SH 506 100 HAS 31.00 Mang One = 11 344 100 200 N2 124 *www 201 3160 2891 1905 ( 23.8 123 34.8 184 343 IM 13.3 313 010 3611 HILL 3421 as Hay 90 312) (125 14.2 302) 21:31 NCT an 100 MO THE LINE www. IND aas- THE 1 Uni www -lea) HEI How LO LAB tref P FURTH PHENI OTHER FORMATS Pabeater POET ACTIONS Ca Favorites SMARE RESOURCES Semaraesit AM