Estimation methods with ordered exposure subject to measurement error and missingness in semi-ecological design

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Igor Burstyn³  Martie van Tongeren¹  Chul Gyu Park⁴  Hyang-Mi Kim² 

[1] Centre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK;Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada;Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA;School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

关键词: Measurement errors;    Isotonic regression;    Group-based strategy;    EM algorithm;    Constrained estimation;   

Others  :  1126801
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-135

 received in 2012-02-19, accepted in 2012-08-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

In epidemiological studies, it is often not possible to measure accurately exposures of participants even if their response variable can be measured without error. When there are several groups of subjects, occupational epidemiologists employ group-based strategy (GBS) for exposure assessment to reduce bias due to measurement errors: individuals of a group/job within study sample are assigned commonly to the sample mean of exposure measurements from their group in evaluating the effect of exposure on the response. Therefore, exposure is estimated on an ecological level while health outcomes are ascertained for each subject. Such study design leads to negligible bias in risk estimates when group means are estimated from ‘large’ samples. However, in many cases, only a small number of observations are available to estimate the group means, and this causes bias in the observed exposure-disease association. Also, the analysis in a semi-ecological design may involve exposure data with the majority missing and the rest observed with measurement errors and complete response data collected with ascertainment.

Methods

In workplaces groups/jobs are naturally ordered and this could be incorporated in estimation procedure by constrained estimation methods together with the expectation and maximization (EM) algorithms for regression models having measurement error and missing values. Four methods were compared by a simulation study: naive complete-case analysis, GBS, the constrained GBS (CGBS), and the constrained expectation and maximization (CEM). We illustrated the methods in the analysis of decline in lung function due to exposures to carbon black.

Results

Naive and GBS approaches were shown to be inadequate when the number of exposure measurements is too small to accurately estimate group means. The CEM method appears to be best among them when within each exposure group at least a ’moderate’ number of individuals have their exposures observed with error. However, compared with CEM, CGBS is easier to implement and has more desirable bias-reducing properties in the presence of substantial proportions of missing exposure data.

Conclusion

The CGBS approach could be useful for estimating exposure-disease association in semi-ecological studies when the true group means are ordered and the number of measured exposures in each group is small. These findings have important implication for cost-effective design of semi-ecological studies because they enable investigators to more reliably estimate exposure-disease associations with smaller exposure measurement campaign than with the analytical methods that were historically employed.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kim et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Armstrong B: Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup and Environ Med 1998, 55:651-656.
• [2]Carroll R, Ruppert D, Stefanski L, Crainiceanu C: Measurement error in, Nonlinear Models (a modern perspective). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
• [3]Tielemans E, Kupper L, Kromhout H: Individual- based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. Ann Occup Hyg 1998, 42:115-119.
• [4]Silvapulle M, Sen P: Constrained Statistical Inference. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley; 2005.
• [5]Kim H, Loomis D, van Tongeren M, Burstyn I: Bias in the estimation of exposure effects with individual- or group-based exposure assessment. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 2011, 21:212-221.
• [6]Thoresen M, Laake P: A simulation study of measurement error correction methods in logistic regression. Biometrics 2000, 56:868-872.
• [7]Robertson T, Wright F, Dykstra R: Order restricted statistical inference. New York: Wiley; 1988.
• [8]Dempster A, Laird N, Rubin D: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). J R Stat Soc, Ser B 1977, 39:1-38.
• [9]Wu C: On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. Ann Stat 1983, 11:95-103.
• [10]Wu L, Mixed EffectsModelsforComplexData Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
• [11]Yi G, Liu W, Wu L: Simultaneous inference and bias analysis for longitudinal data with covariate measurement error and missing responses. Biometrics 2011, 67:67-75.
• [12]Gardiner K, Threthowan N, Harrington J, Rossiter C, Calvert I: Respiratory health effects of carbon black. A survey of European carbon black workers. Br J ind Med 1993, 50:1082-1096.
• [13]Gardiner K, Calvert I, van Tongeren M, Harrington J: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Black in its Manufacture: Data from 1987 to 1992. Ann Occup Hyg 1996, 40:65-77.
• [14]van Tongeren M, Burstyn I, Kromhout H, Gardiner K: Are variance components of exposure heterogeneous between time periods and factories in the European carbon black industry? Ann Occup Hyg 2006, 50:55-64.
• [15]Melijson I: A fast improvement to the EM Algorithm on its own terms. J R Stat Soc, Ser B 1989, 51:127-138.
• [16]Szpiro A, Sheppard L, Lumley T: Efficient measurement error correction with spatially misaligned data. Biostatistics 2011, 12:610-623.
• [17]Szpiro AJP, Sheppard L: Does more accurate exposure prediction necessarily improve health effect estimates? Epidemiology 2011, 22:680-685.