使用多样本数据集评估和调整生态分析中的偏差。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Qingfeng Li
{"title":"使用多样本数据集评估和调整生态分析中的偏差。","authors":"Qingfeng Li","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02552-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ecological analysis utilizes group-level aggregate measures to investigate the complex relationships between individuals or groups and their environment. Despite its extensive applications across various disciplines, this approach remains susceptible to several biases, including ecological fallacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our study identified another significant source of bias in ecological analysis when using multiple sample datasets, a common practice in fields such as public health and medical research. We show this bias is proportional to the sampling fraction used during data collection. We propose two adjustment methods to address this bias: one that directly accounts for the sampling fraction and another based on measurement error models. The effectiveness of these adjustments is evaluated through formal mathematical derivations, simulations, and empirical analysis using data from the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal that the sampling fraction bias can lead to significant underestimation of true relationships when using aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets. Both adjustment methods effectively mitigate this bias, with the measurement-error-adjusted estimator showing particular robustness in real-world applications. The results highlight the importance of accounting for sampling fraction bias in ecological analyses to ensure accurate inference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Beyond the ecological fallacy uncovered by Robinson's seminar work, our research identified another critical bias in ecological analysis that is likely just as prevalent and consequential. The proposed adjustment methods provide potential tools for researchers to adjust for this bias, thereby improving the validity of ecological inferences. This study underscores the need for caution when pooling aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets and offers potential solutions to enhance the reliability of ecological analyses in various research domains.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing and adjusting for bias in ecological analysis using multiple sample datasets.\",\"authors\":\"Qingfeng Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-025-02552-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ecological analysis utilizes group-level aggregate measures to investigate the complex relationships between individuals or groups and their environment. Despite its extensive applications across various disciplines, this approach remains susceptible to several biases, including ecological fallacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our study identified another significant source of bias in ecological analysis when using multiple sample datasets, a common practice in fields such as public health and medical research. We show this bias is proportional to the sampling fraction used during data collection. We propose two adjustment methods to address this bias: one that directly accounts for the sampling fraction and another based on measurement error models. The effectiveness of these adjustments is evaluated through formal mathematical derivations, simulations, and empirical analysis using data from the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal that the sampling fraction bias can lead to significant underestimation of true relationships when using aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets. Both adjustment methods effectively mitigate this bias, with the measurement-error-adjusted estimator showing particular robustness in real-world applications. The results highlight the importance of accounting for sampling fraction bias in ecological analyses to ensure accurate inference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Beyond the ecological fallacy uncovered by Robinson's seminar work, our research identified another critical bias in ecological analysis that is likely just as prevalent and consequential. The proposed adjustment methods provide potential tools for researchers to adjust for this bias, thereby improving the validity of ecological inferences. This study underscores the need for caution when pooling aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets and offers potential solutions to enhance the reliability of ecological analyses in various research domains.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023363/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02552-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02552-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:生态学分析利用群体水平的汇总措施来研究个体或群体与其环境之间的复杂关系。尽管它广泛应用于各个学科,但这种方法仍然容易受到一些偏见的影响,包括生态谬误。方法:我们的研究在使用多个样本数据集时确定了生态分析中另一个重要的偏倚来源,这是公共卫生和医学研究等领域的常见做法。我们表明,这种偏差与数据收集过程中使用的采样分数成正比。我们提出了两种调整方法来解决这种偏差:一种直接考虑采样分数,另一种基于测量误差模型。通过正式的数学推导、模拟和使用2014年肯尼亚人口与健康调查数据的实证分析,评估了这些调整的有效性。结果:我们的研究结果表明,当使用来自多个样本数据集的汇总测量时,抽样分数偏差可能导致对真实关系的严重低估。两种调整方法都有效地减轻了这种偏差,测量误差调整估计器在实际应用中显示出特别的鲁棒性。结果强调了在生态分析中考虑抽样分数偏差以确保准确推断的重要性。结论:除了罗宾逊在研讨会上发现的生态谬论之外,我们的研究还发现了生态分析中另一种重要的偏见,这种偏见可能同样普遍和重要。提出的调整方法为研究人员提供了调整这种偏差的潜在工具,从而提高了生态推断的有效性。这项研究强调了在汇集来自多个样本数据集的汇总测量时需要谨慎,并提供了潜在的解决方案,以提高不同研究领域生态分析的可靠性。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing and adjusting for bias in ecological analysis using multiple sample datasets.

Background: Ecological analysis utilizes group-level aggregate measures to investigate the complex relationships between individuals or groups and their environment. Despite its extensive applications across various disciplines, this approach remains susceptible to several biases, including ecological fallacy.

Methods: Our study identified another significant source of bias in ecological analysis when using multiple sample datasets, a common practice in fields such as public health and medical research. We show this bias is proportional to the sampling fraction used during data collection. We propose two adjustment methods to address this bias: one that directly accounts for the sampling fraction and another based on measurement error models. The effectiveness of these adjustments is evaluated through formal mathematical derivations, simulations, and empirical analysis using data from the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey.

Results: Our findings reveal that the sampling fraction bias can lead to significant underestimation of true relationships when using aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets. Both adjustment methods effectively mitigate this bias, with the measurement-error-adjusted estimator showing particular robustness in real-world applications. The results highlight the importance of accounting for sampling fraction bias in ecological analyses to ensure accurate inference.

Conclusion: Beyond the ecological fallacy uncovered by Robinson's seminar work, our research identified another critical bias in ecological analysis that is likely just as prevalent and consequential. The proposed adjustment methods provide potential tools for researchers to adjust for this bias, thereby improving the validity of ecological inferences. This study underscores the need for caution when pooling aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets and offers potential solutions to enhance the reliability of ecological analyses in various research domains.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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