Literature DB >> 2050064

Assessing, accommodating, and interpreting the influences of heterogeneity.

T A Louis1.   

Abstract

Heterogeneity, ranging from measurement error to variation among individuals or regions, influences all levels of data collected for risk assessment. In its role as a nemesis, heterogeneity can reduce the precision of estimates, change the shape of a population model, or reduce the generalizability of study results. In many contexts, however, heterogeneity is the primary object of inference. Indeed, some degree of heterogeneity in excess of a baseline amount associated with a statistical model is necessary in order to identify important determinants of response. This report outlines the causes and influences of heterogeneity, develops statistical methods used to estimate and account for it, discusses interpretations of heterogeneity, and shows how it should influence study design. Examples from dose-response modeling, identification of sensitive individuals, assessment of small area variations and meta analysis provide applied contexts.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2050064      PMCID: PMC1519510          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.90-1519510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  24 in total

1.  Measurement error and its impact on partial correlation and multiple linear regression analyses.

Authors:  K Liu
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  The impact of heterogeneity on the comparison of survival times.

Authors:  M Schumacher; M Olschewski; C Schmoor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  The incorporation of historical control information in tests of proportions: simulation study of Tarone's procedure.

Authors:  R N Tamura; S S Young
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

5.  Empirical Bayes estimates of age-standardized relative risks for use in disease mapping.

Authors:  D Clayton; J Kaldor
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Inter-laboratory variability in Ames assay results.

Authors:  M W Knuiman; N M Laird; T A Louis
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 7.  General methods for analysing repeated measures.

Authors:  T A Louis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1988 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Heterogeneity in the probability of HIV transmission per sexual contact: the case of male-to-female transmission in penile-vaginal intercourse.

Authors:  J A Wiley; S J Herschkorn; N S Padian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Thyroid cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation: a case study in the comparative potency model.

Authors:  N M Laird
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 4.000

10.  Analysis of agreement among findings of pathologists in ED01 experiment.

Authors:  D A Amato; S W Lagakos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1988-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  4 in total

1.  The natural history of the use of healthcare information by women with breast cancer: a conceptual model.

Authors:  D R Longo; T B Patrick; R L Kruse
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2001

2.  A Bayesian population PBPK model for multiroute chloroform exposure.

Authors:  Yuching Yang; Xu Xu; Panos G Georgopoulos
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Trends in quantitative cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  S C Morris
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 9.031

4.  Statistical analysis of Clewell et al. PBPK model of trichloroethylene kinetics.

Authors:  F Y Bois
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.031

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.