Literature DB >> 12495142

Comparing the effects of continuous and discrete covariate mismeasurement, with emphasis on the dichotomization of mismeasured predictors.

Paul Gustafson1, D Le Nhu.   

Abstract

It is well known that imprecision in the measurement of predictor variables typically leads to bias in estimated regression coefficients. We compare the bias induced by measurement error in a continuous predictor with that induced by misclassification of a binary predictor in the contexts of linear and logistic regression. To make the comparison fair, we consider misclassification probabilities for a binary predictor that correspond to dichotomizing an imprecise continuous predictor in lieu of its precise counterpart. On this basis, nondifferential binary misclassification is seen to yield more bias than nondifferential continuous measurement error. However, it is known that differential misclassification results if a binary predictor is actually formed by dichotomizing a continuous predictor subject to nondifferential measurement error. When the postulated model linking the response and precise continuous predictor is correct, this differential misclassification is found to yield less bias than continuous measurement error, in contrast with nondifferential misclassification, i.e., dichotomization reduces the bias due to mismeasurement. This finding, however, is sensitive to the form of the underlying relationship between the response and the continuous predictor. In particular, we give a scenario where dichotomization involves a trade-off between model fit and misclassification bias. We also examine how the bias depends on the choice of threshold in the dichotomization process and on the correlation between the imprecise predictor and a second precise predictor.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12495142     DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00878.x

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


  15 in total

1.  Measurement error of dietary self-report in intervention trials.

Authors:  Loki Natarajan; Minya Pu; Juanjuan Fan; Richard A Levine; Ruth E Patterson; Cynthia A Thomson; Cheryl L Rock; John P Pierce
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: review of current practice and recommendations.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Veronika Deffner; Ruth H Keogh; Janet A Tooze; Kevin W Dodd; Helmut Küchenhoff; Victor Kipnis; Laurence S Freedman
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 3.797

3.  Inference for causal interactions for continuous exposures under dichotomization.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Yu Chen; Habibul Ahsan
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Split and combine simulation extrapolation algorithm to correct geocoding coarsening of built environment exposures.

Authors:  Jung Y Won; Emma V Sanchez-Vaznaugh; Yuqi Zhai; Brisa N Sánchez
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  STRATOS guidance document on measurement error and misclassification of variables in observational epidemiology: Part 2-More complex methods of adjustment and advanced topics.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Paul Gustafson; Raymond J Carroll; Veronika Deffner; Kevin W Dodd; Ruth H Keogh; Victor Kipnis; Janet A Tooze; Michael P Wallace; Helmut Küchenhoff; Laurence S Freedman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Estimation using all available covariate information versus a fixed look-back window for dichotomous covariates.

Authors:  Steven M Brunelli; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Shirley V Wang; Amanda R Patrick; Kenneth J Rothman; John D Seeger
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 7.  Probabilistic approaches to better quantifying the results of epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Paul Gustafson; Lawrence C McCandless
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Methods to adjust for misclassification in the quantiles for the generalized linear model with measurement error in continuous exposures.

Authors:  Ching-Yun Wang; Jean De Dieu Tapsoba; Catherine Duggan; Kristin L Campbell; Anne McTiernan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Regression calibration for dichotomized mismeasured predictors.

Authors:  Loki Natarajan
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 0.968

10.  Non-differential measurement error does not always bias diagnostic likelihood ratios towards the null.

Authors:  G T Fosgate
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2006-07-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.