{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017707362534948742, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.431137724550898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing measurements of biomarkers with other measurements of exposure.

The issue of the relative merit of biomarkers and alternative measures of exposure arises most commonly in the context of epidemiological studies aimed at hazard detection and quantification. When exposures are from biological agents, biomarkers are usually the first and often the only justifiable choice. In general, however, the relative merit of different types of exposure measurements need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Biomarkers may be affected by random errors, time-related sampling errors, physiological confounding and disease-induced differential error, all of which need to be explicitly evaluated before embarking on the use of a biomarker in a full-scale epidemiological study. Random errors affecting biomarkers may be reduced by replication or combination of measurements, or both. Alternative measurements of exposure can be evaluated against a biomarker when there is adequate evidence for regarding the marker as the true measure of a biologically relevant exposure.