A weighting method for simultaneous adjustment for confounding and joint exposure-outcome misclassifications.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Penning de Vries BB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008432 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Dimension reduction methods are commonly applied to high-throughput biological datasets. However, the results can be hindered by confounding factors, either biological or technical in origin. In this study, we extend principal component analysis (PCA) to propose AC-PCA for simultaneous dimension reduction and adjustment for confounding (AC) variation. We show that AC-PCA can adjust for (i) variations across individual donors present in a human brain exon array dataset and (ii) variations of different species in a model organism ENCODE RNA sequencing dataset. Our approach is able to recover the anatomical structure of neocortical regions and to capture the shared variation among species during embryonic development. For gene selection purposes, we extend AC-PCA with sparsity constraints and propose and implement an efficient algorithm. The methods developed in this paper can also be applied to more general settings. The R package and MATLAB source code are available at https://github.com/linzx06/AC-PCA.
| S-EPMC5187682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In environmental epidemiology, we are often faced with 2 challenges. First, an exposure prediction model is needed to estimate the exposure to an agent of interest, ideally at the individual level. Second, when estimating the health effect associated with the exposure, confounding adjustment is needed in the health-effects regression model. The current literature addresses these 2 challenges separately. That is, methods that account for measurement error in the predicted exposure often fail to acknowledge the possibility of confounding, whereas methods designed to control confounding often fail to acknowledge that the exposure has been predicted. In this article, we consider exposure prediction and confounding adjustment in a health-effects regression model simultaneously. Using theoretical arguments and simulation studies, we show that the bias of a health-effect estimate is influenced by the exposure prediction model, the type of confounding adjustment used in the health-effects regression model, and the relationship between these 2. Moreover, we argue that even with a health-effects regression model that properly adjusts for confounding, the use of a predicted exposure can bias the health-effect estimate unless all confounders included in the health-effects regression model are also included in the exposure prediction model. While these results of this article were motivated by studies of environmental contaminants, they apply more broadly to any context where an exposure needs to be predicted.
| S-EPMC4206696 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundObservational studies of medical interventions or risk factors are potentially biased by unmeasured confounding. In this paper we propose a Bayesian approach by defining an informative prior for the confounder-outcome relation, to reduce bias due to unmeasured confounding. This approach was motivated by the phenomenon that the presence of unmeasured confounding may be reflected in observed confounder-outcome relations being unexpected in terms of direction or magnitude.MethodsThe approach was tested using simulation studies and was illustrated in an empirical example of the relation between LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure. In simulated data, a comparison of the estimated exposure-outcome relation was made between two frequentist multivariable linear regression models and three Bayesian multivariable linear regression models, which varied in the precision of the prior distributions. Simulated data contained information on a continuous exposure, a continuous outcome, and two continuous confounders (one considered measured one unmeasured), under various scenarios.ResultsIn various scenarios the proposed Bayesian analysis with an correctly specified informative prior for the confounder-outcome relation substantially reduced bias due to unmeasured confounding and was less biased than the frequentist model with covariate adjustment for one of the two confounding variables. Also, in general the MSE was smaller for the Bayesian model with informative prior, compared to the other models.ConclusionsAs incorporating (informative) prior information for the confounder-outcome relation may reduce the bias due to unmeasured confounding, we consider this approach one of many possible sensitivity analyses of unmeasured confounding.
| S-EPMC6303957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adjusting for an unmeasured confounder is generally an intractable problem, but in the spatial setting it may be possible under certain conditions. We derive necessary conditions on the coherence between the exposure and the unmeasured confounder that ensure the effect of exposure is estimable. We specify our model and assumptions in the spectral domain to allow for different degrees of confounding at different spatial resolutions. One assumption that ensures identifiability is that confounding present at global scales dissipates at local scales. We show that this assumption in the spectral domain is equivalent to adjusting for global-scale confounding in the spatial domain by adding a spatially smoothed version of the exposure to the mean of the response variable. Within this general framework, we propose a sequence of confounder adjustment methods that range from parametric adjustments based on the Matérn coherence function to more robust semiparametric methods that use smoothing splines. These ideas are applied to areal and geostatistical data for both simulated and real datasets.
| S-EPMC10947425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When exposure is infrequent, propensity-score matching results in reduced precision because it discards a large proportion of unexposed patients. To our knowledge, the relative performance of propensity-score stratification in these circumstances has not been examined.Using an empirical example of the association of first trimester statin exposure (prevalence = 0.04%) with risk of congenital malformations and 1,000 simulated cohorts (n = 20,000) with eight combinations of exposure prevalence (0.5%, 1%, 5%, 10%) and outcome risk (3.5%, 10%), we compared four propensity-score-based approaches to confounding adjustment: (1) matching (1:1, 1:5, full), (2) stratification in 10, 50, and 100 strata by entire cohort propensity-score distribution, (3) stratification in 10, 50, and 100 strata by exposed group propensity-score distribution, (4) standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting. Weighted generalized linear models were used to derive effect estimates after weighting unexposed according to the distribution of the exposed in their stratum for the stratification approaches.In the empirical example, propensity-score stratification (cohort) approaches resulted in greater imbalances in covariate distributions between statin-exposed and unexposed compared with propensity-score stratification (exposed) and matching. In simulations, propensity-score stratification (exposed) resulted in smaller relative bias than the cohort approach with 10 and 50 strata, and greater precision than matching and SMR weighting at 0.5% and 1% exposure prevalence, but similar performance at 5% and 10%.For exposures with prevalence under 5%, propensity-score stratification with fine strata, based on the exposed group propensity-score distribution, produced the best results. For more common exposures, all approaches were equivalent.
| S-EPMC5497217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Unmeasured, spatially-structured factors can confound associations between spatial environmental exposures and health outcomes. Adding flexible splines to a regression model is a simple approach for spatial confounding adjustment, but the spline degrees of freedom do not provide an easily interpretable spatial scale. We describe a method for quantifying the extent of spatial confounding adjustment in terms of the Euclidean distance at which variation is removed. We develop this approach for confounding adjustment with splines and using Fourier and wavelet filtering. We demonstrate differences in the spatial scales these bases can represent and provide a comparison of methods for selecting the amount of confounding adjustment. We find the best performance for selecting the amount of adjustment using an information criterion evaluated on an outcome model without exposure. We apply this method to spatial adjustment in an analysis of fine particulate matter and blood pressure in a cohort of United States women.
| S-EPMC7592711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meta-analyses have reported higher levels of coffee consumption to be associated with lower mortality. In contrast, some systematic reviews have linked coffee consumption to increased risks for lung cancer and hypertension. Given these inconsistencies, this narrative review critically evaluated the methods and analyses of cohort studies investigating coffee and mortality. A specific focus was adjustment for confounding related to smoking, healthy and unhealthy foods, and alcohol. Assessment of 36 cohort samples showed that many did not adequately adjust for smoking. Consuming 1-5 cups of coffee per day was related to lower mortality among never smokers, in studies that adjusted for pack-years of smoking, and in studies adjusting for healthy and unhealthy foods. Possible reduced health benefits for coffee with added sugar have not been adequately investigated. Research on coffee and health should report separate analyses for never smokers, adjust for consumption of healthy and unhealthy foods, and for sugar added to coffee.
| S-EPMC6949275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With continuous outcomes, the average causal effect is typically defined using a contrast of expected potential outcomes. However, in the presence of skewed outcome data, the expectation (population mean) may no longer be meaningful. In practice the typical approach is to continue defining the estimand this way or transform the outcome to obtain a more symmetric distribution, although neither approach may be entirely satisfactory. Alternatively the causal effect can be redefined as a contrast of median potential outcomes, yet discussion of confounding-adjustment methods to estimate the causal difference in medians is limited. In this study we described and compared confounding-adjustment methods to address this gap. The methods considered were multivariable quantile regression, an inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimator, weighted quantile regression (another form of IPW) and two little-known implementations of g-computation for this problem. Methods were evaluated within a simulation study under varying degrees of skewness in the outcome and applied to an empirical study using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Simulation results indicated the IPW estimator, weighted quantile regression and g-computation implementations minimised bias across all settings when the relevant models were correctly specified, with g-computation additionally minimising the variance. Multivariable quantile regression, which relies on a constant-effect assumption, consistently yielded biased results. Application to the empirical study illustrated the practical value of these methods. The presented methods provide appealing avenues for estimating the causal difference in medians.
| S-EPMC10702096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Confounding factors exist widely in various biological data owing to technical variations, population structures and experimental conditions. Such factors may mask the true signals and lead to spurious associations in the respective biological data, making it necessary to adjust confounding factors accordingly. However, existing confounder correction methods were mainly developed based on the original data or the pairwise Euclidean distance, either one of which is inadequate for analyzing different types of data, such as sequencing data. In this work, we proposed a method called Adjustment for Confounding factors using Principal Coordinate Analysis, or AC-PCoA, which reduces data dimension and extracts the information from different distance measures using principal coordinate analysis, and adjusts confounding factors across multiple datasets by minimizing the associations between lower-dimensional representations and confounding variables. Application of the proposed method was further extended to classification and prediction. We demonstrated the efficacy of AC-PCoA on three simulated datasets and five real datasets. Compared to the existing methods, AC-PCoA shows better results in visualization, statistical testing, clustering, and classification.
| S-EPMC9278763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In stroke studies, ordinal logistic regression (OLR) is often used to analyze outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), whereas the non-parametric Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (MWS) has also been suggested. It is unclear how these perform comparatively when confounding adjustment is warranted. AIMS:Our aim is to quantify the performance of OLR and MWS in different confounding variable settings. METHODS:We set up a simulation study with three different scenarios; (1) dichotomous confounding variables, (2) continuous confounding variables, and (3) confounding variable settings mimicking a study on functional outcome after stroke. We compared adjusted ordinal logistic regression (aOLR) and stratified Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (sMWS), and also used propensity scores to stratify the MWS (psMWS). For comparability, OLR estimates were transformed to a MWS. We report bias, the percentage of runs that produced a point estimate deviating by more than 0.05 points (point estimate variation), and the coverage probability. RESULTS:In scenario 1, there was no bias in both sMWS and aOLR, with similar point estimate variation and coverage probabilities. In scenario 2, sMWS resulted in more bias (0.04 versus 0.00), and higher point estimate variation (41.6% versus 3.3%), whereas coverage probabilities were similar. In scenario 3, there was no bias in both methods, point estimate variation was higher in the sMWS (6.7%) versus aOLR (1.1%), and coverage probabilities were 0.98 (sMWS) versus 0.95 (aOLR). With psMWS, bias remained 0.00, with less point estimate variation (1.5%) and a coverage probability of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS:The bias of both adjustment methods was similar in our stroke simulation scenario, and the higher point estimate variation in the MWS improved with propensity score based stratification. The stratified MWS is a valid alternative for adjusted OLR only when the ratio of number of strata versus number of observations is relatively low, but propensity score based stratification extends the application range of the MWS.
| S-EPMC7162480 | biostudies-literature