Evaluation of a two‐part regression calibration to adjust for dietary exposure measurement error in the Cox proportional hazards model: A simulation study

Dietary questionnaires are prone to measurement error, which bias the perceived association between dietary intake and risk of disease. Short‐term measurements are required to adjust for the bias in the association. For foods that are not consumed daily, the short‐term measurements are often characterized by excess zeroes. Via a simulation study, the performance of a two‐part calibration model that was developed for a single‐replicate study design was assessed by mimicking leafy vegetable intake reports from the multicenter European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. In part I of the fitted two‐part calibration model, a logistic distribution was assumed; in part II, a gamma distribution was assumed. The model was assessed with respect to the magnitude of the correlation between the consumption probability and the consumed amount (hereafter, cross‐part correlation), the number and form of covariates in the calibration model, the percentage of zero response values, and the magnitude of the measurement error in the dietary intake. From the simulation study results, transforming the dietary variable in the regression calibration to an appropriate scale was found to be the most important factor for the model performance. Reducing the number of covariates in the model could be beneficial, but was not critical in large‐sample studies. The performance was remarkably robust when fitting a one‐part rather than a two‐part model. The model performance was minimally affected by the cross‐part correlation.     

A simulation study of measurement error correction methods in logistic regression

Measurement error models in logistic regression have received considerable theoretical interest over the past 10-15 years. In this paper, we present the results of a simulation study that compares four estimation methods: the so-called regression calibration method, probit maximum likelihood as an approximation to the logistic maximum likelihood, the exact maximum likelihood method based on a logistic model, and the naive estimator, which is the result of simply ignoring the fact that some of the explanatory variables are measured with error. We have compared the behavior of these methods in a simple, additive measurement error model. We show that, in this situation, the regression calibration method is a very good alternative to more mathematically sophisticated methods.     

A new method for dealing with measurement error in explanatory variables of regression models

We introduce a new method, moment reconstruction, of correcting for measurement error in covariates in regression models. The central idea is similar to regression calibration in that the values of the covariates that are measured with error are replaced by "adjusted" values. In regression calibration the adjusted value is the expectation of the true value conditional on the measured value. In moment reconstruction the adjusted value is the variance-preserving empirical Bayes estimate of the true value conditional on the outcome variable. The adjusted values thereby have the same first two moments and the same covariance with the outcome variable as the unobserved "true" covariate values. We show that moment reconstruction is equivalent to regression calibration in the case of linear regression, but leads to different results for logistic regression. For case-control studies with logistic regression and covariates that are normally distributed within cases and controls, we show that the resulting estimates of the regression coefficients are consistent. In simulations we demonstrate that for logistic regression, moment reconstruction carries less bias than regression calibration, and for case-control studies is superior in mean-square error to the standard regression calibration approach. Finally, we give an example of the use of moment reconstruction in linear discriminant analysis and a nonstandard problem where we wish to adjust a classification tree for measurement error in the explanatory variables.     

Correcting for measurement error in fractional polynomial models using Bayesian modelling and regression calibration,with an application to alcohol and mortality

Exposure measurement error can result in a biased estimate of the association between an exposure and outcome. When the exposure–outcome relationship is linear on the appropriate scale (e.g. linear, logistic) and the measurement error is classical, that is the result of random noise, the result is attenuation of the effect. When the relationship is non‐linear, measurement error distorts the true shape of the association. Regression calibration is a commonly used method for correcting for measurement error, in which each individual's unknown true exposure in the outcome regression model is replaced by its expectation conditional on the error‐prone measure and any fully measured covariates. Regression calibration is simple to execute when the exposure is untransformed in the linear predictor of the outcome regression model, but less straightforward when non‐linear transformations of the exposure are used. We describe a method for applying regression calibration in models in which a non‐linear association is modelled by transforming the exposure using a fractional polynomial model. It is shown that taking a Bayesian estimation approach is advantageous. By use of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, one can sample from the distribution of the true exposure for each individual. Transformations of the sampled values can then be performed directly and used to find the expectation of the transformed exposure required for regression calibration. A simulation study shows that the proposed approach performs well. We apply the method to investigate the relationship between usual alcohol intake and subsequent all‐cause mortality using an error model that adjusts for the episodic nature of alcohol consumption.     

Regression analysis when covariates are regression parameters of a random effects model for observed longitudinal measurements

We consider regression analysis when covariate variables are the underlying regression coefficients of another linear mixed model. A naive approach is to use each subject's repeated measurements, which are assumed to follow a linear mixed model, and obtain subject-specific estimated coefficients to replace the covariate variables. However, directly replacing the unobserved covariates in the primary regression by these estimated coefficients may result in a significantly biased estimator. The aforementioned problem can be evaluated as a generalization of the classical additive error model where repeated measures are considered as replicates. To correct for these biases, we investigate a pseudo-expected estimating equation (EEE) estimator, a regression calibration (RC) estimator, and a refined version of the RC estimator. For linear regression, the first two estimators are identical under certain conditions. However, when the primary regression model is a nonlinear model, the RC estimator is usually biased. We thus consider a refined regression calibration estimator whose performance is close to that of the pseudo-EEE estimator but does not require numerical integration. The RC estimator is also extended to the proportional hazards regression model. In addition to the distribution theory, we evaluate the methods through simulation studies. The methods are applied to analyze a real dataset from a child growth study.     

A measurement error model for time-series studies of air pollution and mortality

One barrier to interpreting the observational evidence concerning the adverse health effects of air pollution for public policy purposes is the measurement error inherent in estimates of exposure based on ambient pollutant monitors. Exposure assessment studies have shown that data from monitors at central sites may not adequately represent personal exposure. Thus, the exposure error resulting from using centrally measured data as a surrogate for personal exposure can potentially lead to a bias in estimates of the health effects of air pollution. This paper develops a multi-stage Poisson regression model for evaluating the effects of exposure measurement error on estimates of effects of particulate air pollution on mortality in time-series studies. To implement the model, we have used five validation data sets on personal exposure to PM10. Our goal is to combine data on the associations between ambient concentrations of particulate matter and mortality for a specific location, with the validation data on the association between ambient and personal concentrations of particulate matter at the locations where data have been collected. We use these data in a model to estimate the relative risk of mortality associated with estimated personal-exposure concentrations and make a comparison with the risk of mortality estimated with measurements of ambient concentration alone. We apply this method to data comprising daily mortality counts, ambient concentrations of PM10measured at a central site, and temperature for Baltimore, Maryland from 1987 to 1994. We have selected our home city of Baltimore to illustrate the method; the measurement error correction model is general and can be applied to other appropriate locations.Our approach uses a combination of: (1) a generalized additive model with log link and Poisson error for the mortality-personal-exposure association; (2) a multi-stage linear model to estimate the variability across the five validation data sets in the personal-ambient-exposure association; (3) data augmentation methods to address the uncertainty resulting from the missing personal exposure time series in Baltimore. In the Poisson regression model, we account for smooth seasonal and annual trends in mortality using smoothing splines. Taking into account the heterogeneity across locations in the personal-ambient-exposure relationship, we quantify the degree to which the exposure measurement error biases the results toward the null hypothesis of no effect, and estimate the loss of precision in the estimated health effects due to indirectly estimating personal exposures from ambient measurements.     

A spatio‐temporal framework for efficient inventories of natural resources: A case study with submersed macrophytes

Questions: Does a reduced nutrient load in open water increase species richness and the importance of regional and local site characteristics for species abundance and spatial distribution? Can we build lake‐specific models of macrophyte abundance and distribution based on site characteristics in order to prepare a cost‐efficient framework for future surveys? Location: Lake Constance, 47°39′N, 9°18′E. Methods: Generalized additive models (GAMs) were used to predict the potential distributions of eight species and overall species richness. Submersed macrophyte distribution in 1993 was compared with corresponding data from 1978, when eutrophication was at its maximum. Results: Spatial predictions for eight species and overall species richness were relatively accurate and independent of water chemistry. Depth was confirmed as a main predictor of species distribution, while effective fetch distance was retained in many models. Mineralogical variables of sediment composition represent allogenic and autogenic sediment sources and their east‐west gradient in Lake Constance corresponded to east‐west gradients of species distribution and richness. GAMs appeared more efficient than generalized linear models (GLMs) for modelling species responses to environmental gradients. Conclusions: Reduced trophic status increases species richness and the importance of regional and local site characteristics for species abundance and distribution. Our models represent a spatio‐temporal framework for future lake monitoring purposes and allow the development of effective monitoring; this could be generalized for many ecosystem types and would be particularly efficient for large lakes such as Lake Constance.