Literature DB >> 16220473

Curious phenomena in Bayesian adjustment for exposure misclassification.

Paul Gustafson1, Sander Greenland.   

Abstract

Many epidemiologic investigations involve some discussion of exposure misclassification, but rarely is there an attempt to adjust for misclassification formally in the statistical analysis. Rather, investigators tend to rely on intuition to comment qualitatively on how misclassification might impact their findings. We point out several ways in which intuition might fail, in the context of unmatched case-control analysis with non-differential exposure misclassification. Particularly, we focus on how intuition can conflict with the results of a Bayesian analysis that accounts for the various uncertainties at hand. First, the Bayesian adjustment for misclassification can weaken the evidence about the direction of an exposure-disease association. Second, admitting uncertainty about the misclassification parameters can lead to narrower interval estimates concerning the association. We focus on the simple setting of unmatched case-control analysis with binary exposure and without adjustment for confounders, though much of our discussion should be relevant more generally. Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16220473     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  7 in total

1.  Substance use of pregnant women and early neonatal morbidity: where to focus intervention?

Authors:  Igor Burstyn; Nitin Kapur; Nicola M Cherry
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr

2.  On estimation of vaccine efficacy using validation samples with selection bias.

Authors:  Daniel O Scharfstein; M Elizabeth Halloran; Haitao Chu; Michael J Daniels
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Sensitivity Analyses for Misclassification of Cause of Death in the Parametric G-Formula.

Authors:  Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Richard D Moore; W Christopher Mathews; Mari Kitahata; Joseph J Eron
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Incorporating individual-level distributions of exposure error in epidemiologic analyses: an example using arsenic in drinking water and bladder cancer.

Authors:  Jaymie R Meliker; Pierre Goovaerts; Geoffrey M Jacquez; Jerome O Nriagu
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 5.  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

6.  Multiple Imputation to Account for Measurement Error in Marginal Structural Models.

Authors:  Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Daniel Westreich; Heidi Crane; Joseph J Eron; W Christopher Mathews; Richard Moore; Stephen L Boswell; Catherine R Lesko; Michael J Mugavero
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Identification of confounder in epidemiologic data contaminated by measurement error in covariates.

Authors:  Paul H Lee; Igor Burstyn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.