{"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}
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.
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.