Dataset Information

Assessing bias in demographic estimates from joint live and dead encounter models.

ABSTRACT: Joint encounter (JE) models estimate demographic rates using live recapture and dead recovery data. The extent to which limited recapture or recovery data can hinder estimation in JE models is not completely understood. Yet limited data are common in ecological research. We designed a series of simulations using Bayesian multistate JE models that spanned a large range of potential recapture probabilities (0.01-0.90) and two reported mortality probabilities (0.10, 0.19). We calculated bias by comparing estimates against known probabilities of survival, fidelity and reported mortality. We explored whether sparse data (i.e., recapture probabilities <0.02) compromised inference about survival by comparing estimates from dead recovery (DR) and JE models using an 18-year data set from a migratory bird, the lesser snow goose (Anser caerulescens caerulescens). Our simulations showed that bias in probabilities of survival, fidelity and reported mortality was relatively low across a large range of recapture probabilities, except when recapture and reported mortality probabilities were both lowest. While bias in fidelity probability was similar across all recapture probabilities, the root mean square error declined substantially with increased recapture probabilities for reported mortality probabilities of 0.10 or 0.19, as expected. In our case study, annual survival probabilities for adult female snow geese were similar whether estimated with JE or DR models, but more precise from JE models than those from DR models. Thus, our simulated and empirical data suggest acceptably minimal bias in survival, fidelity or reported mortality probabilities estimated from JE models. Even a small amount of recapture information provided adequate structure for JE models, except when reported mortality probabilities were <0.10. Thus, practitioners with limited recapture data should not be discouraged from use of JE models. We recommend that ecologists incorporate other data types as frequently as analytically possible, since precision of focal parameters is improved, and additional parameters of interest can be estimated.

SUBMITTER: Weegman MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7319022 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing bias in demographic estimates from joint live and dead encounter models.

Weegman Mitch D MD Wilson Scott S Alisauskas Ray T RT Kellett Dana K DK

PeerJ 20200623

Joint encounter (JE) models estimate demographic rates using live recapture and dead recovery data. The extent to which limited recapture or recovery data can hinder estimation in JE models is not completely understood. Yet limited data are common in ecological research. We designed a series of simulations using Bayesian multistate JE models that spanned a large range of potential recapture probabilities (0.01-0.90) and two reported mortality probabilities (0.10, 0.19). We calculated bias by com ...[more]

PMID: 32612891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn increasingly popular measure for summarising cancer prognosis is the loss in life expectancy (LLE), i.e. the reduction in life expectancy following a cancer diagnosis. The proportion of life lost (PLL) can also be derived, improving comparability across age groups as LLE is highly age-dependent. LLE and PLL are often used to assess the impact of cancer over the remaining lifespan and across groups (e.g. socioeconomic groups). However, in the presence of screening, it is unclear whether part of the differences across population groups could be attributed to lead time bias. Lead time is the extra time added due to early diagnosis, that is, the time from tumour detection through screening to the time that cancer would have been diagnosed symptomatically. It leads to artificially inflated survival estimates even when there are no real survival improvements.MethodsIn this paper, we used a simulation-based approach to assess the impact of lead time due to mammography screening on the estimation of LLE and PLL in breast cancer patients. A natural history model developed in a Swedish setting was used to simulate the growth of breast cancer tumours and age at symptomatic detection. Then, a screening programme similar to current guidelines in Sweden was imposed, with individuals aged 40-74 invited to participate every second year; different scenarios were considered for screening sensitivity and attendance. To isolate the lead time bias of screening, we assumed that screening does not affect the actual time of death. Finally, estimates of LLE and PLL were obtained in the absence and presence of screening, and their difference was used to derive the lead time bias.ResultsThe largest absolute bias for LLE was 0.61 years for a high screening sensitivity scenario and assuming perfect screening attendance. The absolute bias was reduced to 0.46 years when the perfect attendance assumption was relaxed to allow for imperfect attendance across screening visits. Bias was also present for the PLL estimates.ConclusionsThe results of the analysis suggested that lead time bias influences LLE and PLL metrics, thus requiring special consideration when interpreting comparisons across calendar time or population groups.

Project description:In a companion paper Balbona et al. (Behav Genet, in press), we introduced a series of causal models that use polygenic scores from transmitted and nontransmitted alleles, the offspring trait, and parental traits to estimate the variation due to the environmental influences the parental trait has on the offspring trait (vertical transmission) as well as additive genetic effects. These models also estimate and account for the gene-gene and gene-environment covariation that arises from assortative mating and vertical transmission respectively. In the current study, we simulated polygenic scores and phenotypes of parents and offspring under genetic and vertical transmission scenarios, assuming two types of assortative mating. We instantiated the models from our companion paper in the OpenMx software, and compared the true values of parameters to maximum likelihood estimates from models fitted on the simulated data to quantify the bias and precision of estimates. We show that parameter estimates from these models are unbiased when assumptions are met, but as expected, they are biased to the degree that assumptions are unmet. Standard errors of the estimated variances due to vertical transmission and to genetic effects decrease with increasing sample sizes and with increasing [Formula: see text] values of the polygenic score. Even when the polygenic score explains a modest amount of trait variation ([Formula: see text]), standard errors of these standardized estimates are reasonable ([Formula: see text]) for [Formula: see text] trios, and can even be reasonable for smaller sample sizes (e.g., down to 4K) when the polygenic score is more predictive. These causal models offer a novel approach for understanding how parents influence their offspring, but their use requires polygenic scores on relevant traits that are modestly predictive (e.g., [Formula: see text] as well as datasets with genomic and phenotypic information on parents and offspring. The utility of polygenic scores for elucidating parental influences should thus serve as additional motivation for large genomic biobanks to perform GWAS's on traits that may be relevant to parenting and to oversample close relatives, particularly parents and offspring.

Project description:Accuracy of transcript quantification with RNA-Seq is negatively affected by positional fragment bias. This article introduces Mix2 (rd. "mixquare"), a transcript quantification method which uses a mixture of probability distributions to model and thereby neutralize the effects of positional fragment bias. The parameters of Mix2 are trained by Expectation Maximization resulting in simultaneous transcript abundance and bias estimates. We compare Mix2 to Cufflinks, RSEM, eXpress and PennSeq; state-of-the-art quantification methods implementing some form of bias correction. On four synthetic biases we show that the accuracy of Mix2 overall exceeds the accuracy of the other methods and that its bias estimates converge to the correct solution. We further evaluate Mix2 on real RNA-Seq data from the Microarray and Sequencing Quality Control (MAQC, SEQC) Consortia. On MAQC data, Mix2 achieves improved correlation to qPCR measurements with a relative increase in R2 between 4% and 50%. Mix2 also yields repeatable concentration estimates across technical replicates with a relative increase in R2 between 8% and 47% and reduced standard deviation across the full concentration range. We further observe more accurate detection of differential expression with a relative increase in true positives between 74% and 378% for 5% false positives. In addition, Mix2 reveals 5 dominant biases in MAQC data deviating from the common assumption of a uniform fragment distribution. On SEQC data, Mix2 yields higher consistency between measured and predicted concentration ratios. A relative error of 20% or less is obtained for 51% of transcripts by Mix2, 40% of transcripts by Cufflinks and RSEM and 30% by eXpress. Titration order consistency is correct for 47% of transcripts for Mix2, 41% for Cufflinks and RSEM and 34% for eXpress. We, further, observe improved repeatability across laboratory sites with a relative increase in R2 between 8% and 44% and reduced standard deviation.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further.MethodsSelected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi < 0.4 as poor, 0.4 ≤ Pi ≥ 0.8 as substantial and Pi > 0.80 as almost perfect agreement.ResultsOur review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51-0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested.ConclusionsWe developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Dataset Information

Assessing bias in demographic estimates from joint live and dead encounter models.

Publications

Assessing bias in demographic estimates from joint live and dead encounter models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets