Literature DB >> 10985228

A simulation study of measurement error correction methods in logistic regression.

M Thoresen1, P Laake.   

Abstract

Measurement error models in logistic regression have received considerable theoretical interest over the past 10-15 years. In this paper, we present the results of a simulation study that compares four estimation methods: the so-called regression calibration method, probit maximum likelihood as an approximation to the logistic maximum likelihood, the exact maximum likelihood method based on a logistic model, and the naive estimator, which is the result of simply ignoring the fact that some of the explanatory variables are measured with error. We have compared the behavior of these methods in a simple, additive measurement error model. We show that, in this situation, the regression calibration method is a very good alternative to more mathematically sophisticated methods.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10985228     DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00868.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  8 in total

1.  Approximate and Pseudo-Likelihood Analysis for Logistic Regression Using External Validation Data to Model Log Exposure.

Authors:  Robert H Lyles; Lawrence L Kupper
Journal:  J Agric Biol Environ Stat       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 1.524

2.  Measurement error caused by spatial misalignment in environmental epidemiology.

Authors:  Alexandros Gryparis; Christopher J Paciorek; Ariana Zeka; Joel Schwartz; Brent A Coull
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Logistic regression with a continuous exposure measured in pools and subject to errors.

Authors:  Dane R Van Domelen; Emily M Mitchell; Neil J Perkins; Enrique F Schisterman; Amita K Manatunga; Yijian Huang; Robert H Lyles
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Binary regression analysis with pooled exposure measurements: a regression calibration approach.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang; Paul S Albert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  What can we learn from a decade of database audits? The Duke Clinical Research Institute experience, 1997--2006.

Authors:  Reza Rostami; Meredith Nahm; Carl F Pieper
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Maximum likelihood, multiple imputation and regression calibration for measurement error adjustment.

Authors:  Karen Messer; Loki Natarajan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Risk of using logistic regression to illustrate exposure-response relationship of infectious diseases.

Authors:  Jinma Ren; Zhen Ning; Carmen S Kirkness; Carl V Asche; Huaping Wang
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 3.090

8.  Estimation methods with ordered exposure subject to measurement error and missingness in semi-ecological design.

Authors:  Hyang-Mi Kim; Chul Gyu Park; Martie van Tongeren; Igor Burstyn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.