Literature DB >> 9192443

Fully parametric and semi-parametric regression models for common events with covariate measurement error in main study/validation study designs.

D Spiegelman1, M Casella.   

Abstract

The derivation of the likelihood function for binary data from two types of main study/validation study designs where model covariates are measured with error is elaborated. Rather than limiting consideration to a restricted family of models with convenient mathematical properties, we suggest that empirical considerations, customized to the data at hand, should drive model choices. The joint likelihood function for the main study, in which the covariates are measured with error, and the validation study, in which they are not, is maximized, and estimation and inference proceeds using standard theory. Although the choice of the measurement error model is driven by empirical considerations, the relatively small validation study sizes typically seen may lead to misspecification, resulting in bias in estimation and inference about exposure-disease relationships. By using a nonparametric form for the measurement error model, the resulting semi-parametric methods suggested by Robins, Rotnitzky, and Zhao (1994, Journal of the American Statistical Association 89, 864-866) and Robins, Hsieh, and Newey (1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57, 409-424) are free from bias due to misspecification of the measurement error model, trading efficiency for robustness as usual. These fully and semi-parametric methods are illustrated with a detailed example from a main study/validation study of the health effects of occupational exposure to chemotherapeutics among pharmacists (Valanis et al., 1993, American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 50, 455-462). A constant, prevalence ratio model for common binary events, with gamma covariate measurement error, is derived and empirically verified by the available data. A careful reanalysis of the data, taking measurement error fully into account, leads to a threefold increase in the log relative risk and no loss of statistical power. The semi-parametric estimates are consistent with the parametric results, providing reassurance that important bias due to misspecification of the measurement error model is unlikely.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9192443

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


  7 in total

1.  Regression calibration in air pollution epidemiology with exposure estimated by spatio-temporal modeling.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Environmetrics       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Correcting for bias in relative risk estimates due to exposure measurement error: a case study of occupational exposure to antineoplastics in pharmacists.

Authors:  D Spiegelman; B Valanis
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Regression calibration with heteroscedastic error variance.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman; Roger Logan; Douglas Grove
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Validation data-based adjustments for outcome misclassification in logistic regression: an illustration.

Authors:  Robert H Lyles; Li Tang; Hillary M Superak; Caroline C King; David D Celentano; Yungtai Lo; Jack D Sobel
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 5.  Approaches to uncertainty in exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 21.981

6.  Comparing methods of misclassification correction for studies of adolescent alcohol use.

Authors:  Melvin D Livingston; Brad Cannell; Keith Muller; Kelli A Komro
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 3.829

7.  Estimation of the correlation coefficient using the Bayesian Approach and its applications for epidemiologic research.

Authors:  Enrique F Schisterman; Kirsten B Moysich; Lucinda J England; Malla Rao
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-03-25       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.