Dataset Information

Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation?: The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Cefalu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4206696 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation?: The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction.

Cefalu Matthew M Dominici Francesca F

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20140701 4

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 a ...[more]

PMID: 24815302

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe era of big data has enabled sophisticated models to predict air pollution concentrations over space and time. Historically these models have been evaluated using overall metrics that measure how close predictions are to monitoring data. However, overall methods are not designed to distinguish error at timescales most relevant for epidemiologic studies, such as day-to-day errors that impact studies of short-term health associations.MethodsWe introduce frequency band model performance, which quantifies health estimation capacity of air quality prediction models for time series studies of air pollution and health. Frequency band model performance uses a discrete Fourier transform to evaluate prediction models at timescales of interest. We simulated fine particulate matter (PM2.5), with errors at timescales varying from acute to seasonal, and health time series data. To compare evaluation approaches, we use correlations and root mean squared error (RMSE). Additionally, we assess health estimation capacity through bias and RMSE in estimated health associations. We apply frequency band model performance to PM2.5 predictions at 17 monitors in 8 US cities.ResultsIn simulations, frequency band model performance rates predictions better (lower RMSE, higher correlation) when there is no error at a particular timescale (e.g., acute) and worse when error is added to that timescale, compared to overall approaches. Further, frequency band model performance is more strongly associated (R2 = 0.95) with health association bias compared to overall approaches (R2 = 0.57). For PM2.5 predictions in Salt Lake City, UT, frequency band model performance better identifies acute error that may impact estimated short-term health associations.ConclusionsFor epidemiologic studies, frequency band model performance provides an improvement over existing approaches because it evaluates models at the timescale of interest and is more strongly associated with bias in estimated health associations. Evaluating prediction models at timescales relevant for health studies is critical to determining whether model error will impact estimated health associations.

Dataset Information

Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation?: The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction.

Publications

Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation?: The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets