On some pitfalls of the log-linear modeling framework for capture-recapture studies in disease surveillance

Q3 Mathematics
Yuzi Zhang, Lin Ge, Lance A. Waller, Robert H. Lyles
{"title":"On some pitfalls of the log-linear modeling framework for capture-recapture studies in disease surveillance","authors":"Yuzi Zhang, Lin Ge, Lance A. Waller, Robert H. Lyles","doi":"10.1515/em-2023-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In epidemiological studies, the capture-recapture (CRC) method is a powerful tool that can be used to estimate the number of diseased cases or potentially disease prevalence based on data from overlapping surveillance systems. Estimators derived from log-linear models are widely applied by epidemiologists when analyzing CRC data. The popularity of the log-linear model framework is largely associated with its accessibility and the fact that interaction terms can allow for certain types of dependency among data streams. In this work, we shed new light on significant pitfalls associated with the log-linear model framework in the context of CRC using real data examples and simulation studies. First, we demonstrate that the log-linear model paradigm is highly exclusionary. That is, it can exclude, by design, many possible estimates that are potentially consistent with the observed data. Second, we clarify the ways in which regularly used model selection metrics (e.g., information criteria) are fundamentally deceiving in the effort to select a “best” model in this setting. By focusing attention on these important cautionary points and on the fundamental untestable dependency assumption made when fitting a log-linear model to CRC data, we hope to improve the quality of and transparency associated with subsequent surveillance-based CRC estimates of case counts.","PeriodicalId":37999,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2023-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In epidemiological studies, the capture-recapture (CRC) method is a powerful tool that can be used to estimate the number of diseased cases or potentially disease prevalence based on data from overlapping surveillance systems. Estimators derived from log-linear models are widely applied by epidemiologists when analyzing CRC data. The popularity of the log-linear model framework is largely associated with its accessibility and the fact that interaction terms can allow for certain types of dependency among data streams. In this work, we shed new light on significant pitfalls associated with the log-linear model framework in the context of CRC using real data examples and simulation studies. First, we demonstrate that the log-linear model paradigm is highly exclusionary. That is, it can exclude, by design, many possible estimates that are potentially consistent with the observed data. Second, we clarify the ways in which regularly used model selection metrics (e.g., information criteria) are fundamentally deceiving in the effort to select a “best” model in this setting. By focusing attention on these important cautionary points and on the fundamental untestable dependency assumption made when fitting a log-linear model to CRC data, we hope to improve the quality of and transparency associated with subsequent surveillance-based CRC estimates of case counts.
疾病监测中捕获-再捕获研究的对数线性建模框架的一些缺陷
在流行病学研究中,捕获-再捕获(CRC)方法是一种强大的工具,可用于根据重叠监测系统的数据估计患病病例数或潜在疾病患病率。流行病学家在分析CRC数据时广泛使用对数线性模型的估计器。对数线性模型框架的流行在很大程度上与它的可访问性以及交互术语允许数据流之间存在某些类型的依赖关系这一事实有关。在这项工作中,我们使用真实数据示例和模拟研究,揭示了与CRC背景下的对数线性模型框架相关的重大缺陷。首先,我们证明对数线性模型范式是高度排他性的。也就是说,通过设计,它可以排除许多可能与观测数据一致的估计。其次,我们澄清了经常使用的模型选择度量(例如,信息标准)从根本上欺骗了在这种情况下选择“最佳”模型的努力。通过将注意力集中在这些重要的警告点上,以及在将对数线性模型拟合到CRC数据时所做的基本不可检验的依赖假设上,我们希望提高后续基于监测的CRC病例数估计的质量和透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Methods
Epidemiologic Methods Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Methods (EM) seeks contributions comparable to those of the leading epidemiologic journals, but also invites papers that may be more technical or of greater length than what has traditionally been allowed by journals in epidemiology. Applications and examples with real data to illustrate methodology are strongly encouraged but not required. Topics. genetic epidemiology, infectious disease, pharmaco-epidemiology, ecologic studies, environmental exposures, screening, surveillance, social networks, comparative effectiveness, statistical modeling, causal inference, measurement error, study design, meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信