Cargando…
Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits
Quantitative measurements of environmental factors greatly improve the quality of epidemiologic studies but can pose challenges because of the presence of upper or lower detection limits or interfering compounds, which do not allow for precise measured values. We consider the regression of an enviro...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Institute of Environmental Health Science
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253661/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15579415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7199 |
_version_ | 1782125750363619328 |
---|---|
author | Lubin, Jay H. Colt, Joanne S. Camann, David Davis, Scott Cerhan, James R. Severson, Richard K. Bernstein, Leslie Hartge, Patricia |
author_facet | Lubin, Jay H. Colt, Joanne S. Camann, David Davis, Scott Cerhan, James R. Severson, Richard K. Bernstein, Leslie Hartge, Patricia |
author_sort | Lubin, Jay H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Quantitative measurements of environmental factors greatly improve the quality of epidemiologic studies but can pose challenges because of the presence of upper or lower detection limits or interfering compounds, which do not allow for precise measured values. We consider the regression of an environmental measurement (dependent variable) on several covariates (independent variables). Various strategies are commonly employed to impute values for interval-measured data, including assignment of one-half the detection limit to nondetected values or of “fill-in” values randomly selected from an appropriate distribution. On the basis of a limited simulation study, we found that the former approach can be biased unless the percentage of measurements below detection limits is small (5–10%). The fill-in approach generally produces unbiased parameter estimates but may produce biased variance estimates and thereby distort inference when 30% or more of the data are below detection limits. Truncated data methods (e.g., Tobit regression) and multiple imputation offer two unbiased approaches for analyzing measurement data with detection limits. If interest resides solely on regression parameters, then Tobit regression can be used. If individualized values for measurements below detection limits are needed for additional analysis, such as relative risk regression or graphical display, then multiple imputation produces unbiased estimates and nominal confidence intervals unless the proportion of missing data is extreme. We illustrate various approaches using measurements of pesticide residues in carpet dust in control subjects from a case–control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1253661 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | National Institute of Environmental Health Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-12536612005-11-08 Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits Lubin, Jay H. Colt, Joanne S. Camann, David Davis, Scott Cerhan, James R. Severson, Richard K. Bernstein, Leslie Hartge, Patricia Environ Health Perspect Research Quantitative measurements of environmental factors greatly improve the quality of epidemiologic studies but can pose challenges because of the presence of upper or lower detection limits or interfering compounds, which do not allow for precise measured values. We consider the regression of an environmental measurement (dependent variable) on several covariates (independent variables). Various strategies are commonly employed to impute values for interval-measured data, including assignment of one-half the detection limit to nondetected values or of “fill-in” values randomly selected from an appropriate distribution. On the basis of a limited simulation study, we found that the former approach can be biased unless the percentage of measurements below detection limits is small (5–10%). The fill-in approach generally produces unbiased parameter estimates but may produce biased variance estimates and thereby distort inference when 30% or more of the data are below detection limits. Truncated data methods (e.g., Tobit regression) and multiple imputation offer two unbiased approaches for analyzing measurement data with detection limits. If interest resides solely on regression parameters, then Tobit regression can be used. If individualized values for measurements below detection limits are needed for additional analysis, such as relative risk regression or graphical display, then multiple imputation produces unbiased estimates and nominal confidence intervals unless the proportion of missing data is extreme. We illustrate various approaches using measurements of pesticide residues in carpet dust in control subjects from a case–control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. National Institute of Environmental Health Science 2004-12 2004-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC1253661/ /pubmed/15579415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7199 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, ?Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives?); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright. |
spellingShingle | Research Lubin, Jay H. Colt, Joanne S. Camann, David Davis, Scott Cerhan, James R. Severson, Richard K. Bernstein, Leslie Hartge, Patricia Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title | Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title_full | Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title_fullStr | Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title_full_unstemmed | Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title_short | Epidemiologic Evaluation of Measurement Data in the Presence of Detection Limits |
title_sort | epidemiologic evaluation of measurement data in the presence of detection limits |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253661/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15579415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7199 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lubinjayh epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT coltjoannes epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT camanndavid epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT davisscott epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT cerhanjamesr epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT seversonrichardk epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT bernsteinleslie epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits AT hartgepatricia epidemiologicevaluationofmeasurementdatainthepresenceofdetectionlimits |