American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on January 4, 2006
American Journal of Epidemiology 2006 163(4):374-383; doi:10.1093/aje/kwj039
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original Contribution |
The Limitations due to Exposure Detection Limits for Regression Models
From the Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD
Correspondence to Dr. Enrique F. Schisterman, Epidemiology Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 7B03, Rockville, MD 20852 (e-mail: schistee{at}mail.nih.gov).
Biomarker use in exposure assessment is increasingly common, and consideration of related issues is of growing importance. Exposure quantification may be compromised when measurement is subject to a lower threshold. Statistical modeling of such data requires a decision regarding the handling of such readings. Various authors have considered this problem. In the context of linear regression analysis, Richardson and Ciampi (Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:355–63) proposed replacement of data below a threshold by a constant equal to the expectation for such data to yield unbiased estimates. Use of such an imputation has some limitations; distributional assumptions are required, and bias reduction in estimation of regression parameters is asymptotic, thereby presenting concerns about small studies. In this paper, the authors propose distribution-free methods for managing values below detection limits and evaluate the biases that may result when exposure measurement is constrained by a lower threshold. The authors utilize an analytical approach and a simulation study to assess the effects of the proposed replacement method on estimates. These results may inform decisions regarding analytical plans for future studies and provide a possible explanation for some amount of the discordance seen in extant literature.
bias (epidemiology); censored data; epidemiology, molecular; limit of detection; regression analysis
Abbreviations: dl, detection limit; ND, "nondetects."
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. M Flegal, R. Wei, C. L Ogden, D. S Freedman, C. L Johnson, and L. R Curtin Characterizing extreme values of body mass index-for-age by using the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2009; 90(5): 1314 - 1320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R Cole, H. Chu, L. Nie, and E. F Schisterman Estimating the odds ratio when exposure has a limit of detection Int. J. Epidemiol., August 10, 2009; (2009) dyp269v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Kroger, R. Verreault, P.-H. Carmichael, J. Lindsay, P. Julien, E. Dewailly, P. Ayotte, and D. Laurin Omega-3 fatty acids and risk of dementia: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, July 1, 2009; 90(1): 184 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G.M. Buck Louis, J. Dmochowski, C. Lynch, P. Kostyniak, B.M. McGuinness, and J.E. Vena Polychlorinated biphenyl serum concentrations, lifestyle and time-to-pregnancy Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2009; 24(2): 451 - 458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Haufroid, B. Merz, A. Hofmann, A. Tschopp, D. Lison, and P. Hotz Exposure to Ethylene Oxide in Hospitals: Biological Monitoring and Influence of Glutathione S-Transferase and Epoxide Hydrolase Polymorphisms Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2007; 16(4): 796 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|