BACKGROUND: Linear regression with a left-censored independent variable X due to limit of detection (LOD) was recently considered by 2 groups of researchers: Richardson and Ciampi (Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:355-363), and Schisterman et al (Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:374-383). METHODS: Both groups obtained consistent estimators for the regression slopes by replacing left-censored X with a constant, that is, the expectation of X given X below LOD E(X|X<LOD) in the former group and the sample mean of X given X above LOD in the latter. RESULTS: Schisterman et al argued that their approach would be a better choice because the sample mean of X given X above LOD is available, whereas E(X|X<LOD) is unknown. Other substitution methods, such as replacing the left-censored values with LOD, or LOD/2,have been extensively used in the literature. Simulations were conducted to compare the performance under 2 scenarios in which the independent variable is normally and not normally distributed. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are given based on theoretical and simulation results. These recommendations are illustrated with one case study.
BACKGROUND: Linear regression with a left-censored independent variable X due to limit of detection (LOD) was recently considered by 2 groups of researchers: Richardson and Ciampi (Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:355-363), and Schisterman et al (Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:374-383). METHODS: Both groups obtained consistent estimators for the regression slopes by replacing left-censored X with a constant, that is, the expectation of X given X below LOD E(X|X<LOD) in the former group and the sample mean of X given X above LOD in the latter. RESULTS: Schisterman et al argued that their approach would be a better choice because the sample mean of X given X above LOD is available, whereas E(X|X<LOD) is unknown. Other substitution methods, such as replacing the left-censored values with LOD, or LOD/2,have been extensively used in the literature. Simulations were conducted to compare the performance under 2 scenarios in which the independent variable is normally and not normally distributed. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are given based on theoretical and simulation results. These recommendations are illustrated with one case study.
Authors: Jean Wactawski-Wende; Enrique F Schisterman; Kathleen M Hovey; Penelope P Howards; Richard W Browne; Mary Hediger; Aiyi Liu; Maurizio Trevisan Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Jay H Lubin; Joanne S Colt; David Camann; Scott Davis; James R Cerhan; Richard K Severson; Leslie Bernstein; Patricia Hartge Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Perrine Soret; Marta Avalos; Linda Wittkop; Daniel Commenges; Rodolphe Thiébaut Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Gregg E Dinse; Todd A Jusko; Lindsey A Ho; Kaushik Annam; Barry I Graubard; Irva Hertz-Picciotto; Frederick W Miller; Brenda W Gillespie; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jonathan Boss; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kelly K Ferguson; Amira Aker; Akram N Alshawabkeh; José F Cordero; John D Meeker; Sehee Kim Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.822