Abstract
SummaryIn observational epidemiological studies, the exposure that is received by an individual often cannot be precisely observed, resulting in measurement error, and a common approach to dealing with measurement error is regression calibration (RC). Use of RC, which requires assumptions about the distribution of unknown error-free (true) variables, leads to concern about the possibility of bias due to misspecification of that distribution. The simulation–extrapolation (SIMEX) method, in contrast, does not require a distributional assumption. However, analyses of large cohorts may be performed by using grouped or person-year data, and application of SIMEX to grouped data is not straightforward, particularly when there is a mixture of classical and Berkson measurement errors. We compared RC and SIMEX with grouped data analyses to assess robustness of the RC method to misspecification of the true dose distribution. We also applied SIMEX assuming mixtures of classical and Berkson errors and compared the results with those obtained by using RC for classical error only. SIMEX had less bias than RC and performed well regardless of the true dose distribution, whereas RC based on a misspecified true dose distribution showed greater bias than when based on the correctly specified true dose distribution.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.