Including an infrequently measured time-varying error-prone covariate in survival analyses: a simulation-based comparison of methods.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Viviane Philipps, Laurence Freedman, Veronika Deffner, Catherine Helmer, Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, Hendriek Boshuizen, Anne Cm Thiébaut, Cécile Proust-Lima
{"title":"Including an infrequently measured time-varying error-prone covariate in survival analyses: a simulation-based comparison of methods.","authors":"Viviane Philipps, Laurence Freedman, Veronika Deffner, Catherine Helmer, Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, Hendriek Boshuizen, Anne Cm Thiébaut, Cécile Proust-Lima","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwag059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Epidemiologic studies often evaluate the association between an exposure and an event risk. When time-varying, exposures are usually updated at discrete visits although changes are in continuous time and survival models require values to be constantly known. Moreover, exposures are likely measured with error, and their observation truncated at the event time. We aimed to quantify in a Cox regression the bias in the association resulting from intermittent measurements of an error-prone exposure. Using simulations under various scenarios, we compared five methods: last observation carried-forward (LOCF), classical two-stage regression calibration using measurements up to the event (RC) or also after (PE-RC), multiple imputation (MI) and joint modeling of the exposure and the event (JM). The LOCF, and to a lesser extent the classical RC, showed substantial bias in almost all 45 scenarios. The RC bias was avoided when considering post-event information. The MI performed relatively well, as did the JM. Illustrations exploring the association of Body Mass Index and Executive Functioning with dementia risk showed consistent conclusions. Accounting for measurement error and discrete updates is critical when studying time-varying exposures. MI and JM techniques may be applied in this context, while classical RC should be avoided due to the informative truncation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"2622-2631"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epidemiologic studies often evaluate the association between an exposure and an event risk. When time-varying, exposures are usually updated at discrete visits although changes are in continuous time and survival models require values to be constantly known. Moreover, exposures are likely measured with error, and their observation truncated at the event time. We aimed to quantify in a Cox regression the bias in the association resulting from intermittent measurements of an error-prone exposure. Using simulations under various scenarios, we compared five methods: last observation carried-forward (LOCF), classical two-stage regression calibration using measurements up to the event (RC) or also after (PE-RC), multiple imputation (MI) and joint modeling of the exposure and the event (JM). The LOCF, and to a lesser extent the classical RC, showed substantial bias in almost all 45 scenarios. The RC bias was avoided when considering post-event information. The MI performed relatively well, as did the JM. Illustrations exploring the association of Body Mass Index and Executive Functioning with dementia risk showed consistent conclusions. Accounting for measurement error and discrete updates is critical when studying time-varying exposures. MI and JM techniques may be applied in this context, while classical RC should be avoided due to the informative truncation.

在生存分析中包括不经常测量的时变易出错协变量:基于模拟的方法比较。
流行病学研究经常评估暴露与事件风险之间的关系。当时变时,暴露更新通常发生在离散访问中,尽管变化是连续时间的,生存模型需要不断地知道值。此外,曝光的测量很可能有误差,而且在事件发生时,它们的观察被截断了。我们的目的是在Cox回归中量化易出错暴露的间歇性测量所导致的关联偏差。通过不同情景下的模拟,我们比较了五种方法:最后观测结转(LOCF)、经典的两阶段回归校准(RC)、多重插值(MI)和暴露与事件联合建模(JM)。在几乎所有45种情景中,LOCF和较小程度上的经典RC都显示出明显的偏差。在考虑事后信息时避免了RC偏倚。MI表现相对较好,JM也是如此。探索身体质量指数和执行功能与痴呆风险的关联的插图显示了一致的结论。在研究时变暴露时,考虑测量误差和离散更新是至关重要的。MI和JM技术可以应用于这种情况,而经典RC由于信息截断而应避免使用。
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
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书