Dataset Information

Trend tests for the evaluation of exposure-response relationships in epidemiological exposure studies.

ABSTRACT: One possibility for the statistical evaluation of trends in epidemiological exposure studies is the use of a trend test for data organized in a 2 x k contingency table. Commonly, the exposure data are naturally grouped or continuous exposure data are appropriately categorized. The trend test should be sensitive to any shape of the exposure-response relationship. Commonly, a global trend test only determines whether there is a trend or not. Once a trend is seen it is important to identify the likely shape of the exposure-response relationship. This paper introduces a best contrast approach and an alternative approach based on order-restricted information criteria for the model selection of a particular exposure-response relationship. For the simple change point alternative H1 : pi1 = ...= piq

SUBMITTER: Hothorn LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2666731 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trend tests for the evaluation of exposure-response relationships in epidemiological exposure studies.

Hothorn Ludwig A LA Vaeth Michael M Hothorn Torsten T

Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I 20090306

One possibility for the statistical evaluation of trends in epidemiological exposure studies is the use of a trend test for data organized in a 2 x k contingency table. Commonly, the exposure data are naturally grouped or continuous exposure data are appropriately categorized. The trend test should be sensitive to any shape of the exposure-response relationship. Commonly, a global trend test only determines whether there is a trend or not. Once a trend is seen it is important to identify the lik ...[more]

PMID: 19265556

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Exposure to certain pesticides has been associated with several chronic diseases. However, to determine the role of pesticides in the causation of such diseases, an assessment of historical exposures is required. Exposure measurement data are rarely available; therefore, assessment of historical exposures is frequently based on surrogate self-reported information, which has inherent limitations. Understanding the performance of the applied surrogate measures in the exposure assessment of pesticides is therefore important to allow proper evaluation of the risks. OBJECTIVE:The Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides (IMPRESS) project aims to assess the reliability and external validity of the surrogate measures used to assign exposure within individuals or groups of individuals, which are frequently based on self-reported data on exposure determinants. IMPRESS will also evaluate the size of recall bias on the misclassification of exposure to pesticides; this in turn will affect epidemiological estimates of the effect of pesticides on human health. METHODS:The IMPRESS project will recruit existing cohort participants from previous and ongoing research studies primarily of epidemiological origin from Malaysia, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. Consenting participants of each cohort will be reinterviewed using an amended version of the original questionnaire addressing pesticide use characteristics administered to that cohort. The format and relevant questions will be retained but some extraneous questions from the original (eg, relating to health) will be excluded for ethical and practical reasons. The reliability of pesticide exposure recall over different time periods (<2 years, 6-12 years, and >15 years) will then be evaluated. Where the original cohort study is still ongoing, participants will also be asked if they wish to take part in a new exposure biomonitoring survey, which involves them providing urine samples for pesticide metabolite analysis and completing questionnaire information regarding their work activities at the time of sampling. The participant's level of exposure to pesticides will be determined by analyzing the collected urine samples for selected pesticide metabolites. The biomonitoring measurement results will be used to assess the performance of algorithm-based exposure assessment methods used in epidemiological studies to estimate individual exposures during application and re-entry work. RESULTS:The project was funded in September 2017. Enrollment and sample collection was completed for Malaysia in 2019 and is on-going for Uganda and the United Kingdom. Sample and data analysis will proceed in 2020 and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS:The study will evaluate the consistency of questionnaire data and accuracy of current algorithms in assessing pesticide exposures. It will indicate where amendments can be made to better capture exposure data for future epidemiology studies and thus improve the reliability of exposure-disease associations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/16448.

Project description:Environmental exposure assessment based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and study participants' residential proximity to environmental exposure sources relies on the positional accuracy of subjects' residences to avoid misclassification bias. Our study compared the positional accuracy of two automatic geocoding methods to a manual reference method.We geocoded 4,247 address records representing the residential history (1990-2008) of 1,685 women from the French national E3N cohort living in the Rhône-Alpes region. We compared two automatic geocoding methods, a free-online geocoding service (method A) and an in-house geocoder (method B), to a reference layer created by manually relocating addresses from method A (method R). For each automatic geocoding method, positional accuracy levels were compared according to the urban/rural status of addresses and time-periods (1990-2000, 2001-2008), using Chi Square tests. Kappa statistics were performed to assess agreement of positional accuracy of both methods A and B with the reference method, overall, by time-periods and by urban/rural status of addresses.Respectively 81.4% and 84.4% of addresses were geocoded to the exact address (65.1% and 61.4%) or to the street segment (16.3% and 23.0%) with methods A and B. In the reference layer, geocoding accuracy was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (74.4% vs. 10.5% addresses geocoded to the address or interpolated address level, p < 0.0001); no difference was observed according to the period of residence. Compared to the reference method, median positional errors were 0.0 m (IQR = 0.0-37.2 m) and 26.5 m (8.0-134.8 m), with positional errors <100 m for 82.5% and 71.3% of addresses, for method A and method B respectively. Positional agreement of method A and method B with method R was 'substantial' for both methods, with kappa coefficients of 0.60 and 0.61 for methods A and B, respectively.Our study demonstrates the feasibility of geocoding residential addresses in epidemiological studies not initially recorded for environmental exposure assessment, for both recent addresses and residence locations more than 20 years ago. Accuracy of the two automatic geocoding methods was comparable. The in-house method (B) allowed a better control of the geocoding process and was less time consuming.

Dataset Information

Trend tests for the evaluation of exposure-response relationships in epidemiological exposure studies.

Publications

Trend tests for the evaluation of exposure-response relationships in epidemiological exposure studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets