首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Bayesian sensitivity analysis methods to evaluate bias due to misclassification and missing data using informative priors and external validation data
Authors:George Luta  Melissa B Ford  Melissa Bondy  Peter G Shields  James D Stamey
Institution:1. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Building D, Suite 180, 4000 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC 20057-1484, United States;2. MBFord Consulting, 2422 Marika Circle, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, United States;3. Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center, United States;4. Department of Pediatrics, Dan L. Duncan Endowed Professor and McNair Scholar, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Mail Stop BCM305, Houston, TX 77030-3498, United States;5. Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, 300 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 519, Columbus, OH 43210-1280, United States;6. Department of Statistical Science, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97140, Waco, TX 76798, United States
Abstract:Background: Recent research suggests that the Bayesian paradigm may be useful for modeling biases in epidemiological studies, such as those due to misclassification and missing data. We used Bayesian methods to perform sensitivity analyses for assessing the robustness of study findings to the potential effect of these two important sources of bias. Methods: We used data from a study of the joint associations of radiotherapy and smoking with primary lung cancer among breast cancer survivors. We used Bayesian methods to provide an operational way to combine both validation data and expert opinion to account for misclassification of the two risk factors and missing data. For comparative purposes we considered a “full model” that allowed for both misclassification and missing data, along with alternative models that considered only misclassification or missing data, and the naïve model that ignored both sources of bias. Results: We identified noticeable differences between the four models with respect to the posterior distributions of the odds ratios that described the joint associations of radiotherapy and smoking with primary lung cancer. Despite those differences we found that the general conclusions regarding the pattern of associations were the same regardless of the model used. Overall our results indicate a nonsignificantly decreased lung cancer risk due to radiotherapy among nonsmokers, and a mildly increased risk among smokers. Conclusions: We described easy to implement Bayesian methods to perform sensitivity analyses for assessing the robustness of study findings to misclassification and missing data.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号