The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential Misclassification Arising from Nondifferential Errors in Exposure Measurement
Abstract
Misclassification into exposure categories formed from a continuous variable arises from measurement error in the continuous variable. Examples and mathematical results are presented to show that if the measurement error is nondifferential (independent of disease status), the resulting misclassification will often be differential, even in cohort studies. The degree and direction of differential misclassification vary with the exposure distribution, the category definitions, the measurement error distribution, and the exposure-disease relation. Failure to recognize the likelihood of differential misclassification may lead to incorrect conclusions about the effects of measurement error on estimates of relative risk when categories are formed from continuous variables, such as dietary intake. Simulations were used to examine some effects of nondifferential measurement error. Under the conditions used, nondifferential measurement error reduced relative risk estimates, but not to the degree predicted by the assumption of nondifferential misclassification. When relative risk estimates were corrected using methods appropriate for nondifferential misclassification, the "corrected" relative risks were almost always higher than the true relative risks, sometimes considerably higher. The greater the measurement error, the more inaccurate was the correction. The effects of exposure measurement errors need more critical evaluation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed
GROVE, W. A. (1981) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.138.12.1644-a · Cited by 3,748
Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods.
Mayer, L. S., Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Morgenstern, H. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288427 · Cited by 2,905
Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis.
Youkeles, L., & Schlesselman, J. J. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288156 · Cited by 2,346
DOES NONDIFFERENTIAL MISCLASSIFICATION OF EXPOSURE ALWAYS BIAS A TRUE EFFECT TOWARD THE NULL VALUE?
DOSEMECI, M., WACHOLDER, S., & LUBIN, J. H. (1990) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115716 · Cited by 404
THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE MISCLASSIFICATION ON ESTIMATES OF RELATWE RISK
FLEGAL, K. M., BROWNIE, C., & HAAS, J. (1986) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114294 · Cited by 236
Self-citationVARIABILITY IN NUTRIENT AND FOOD INTAKES AMONG OLDER MIDDLE-AGED MEN
Hartman, A. M., Brown, C., Palmgren, J., Pietinen, P., Verkasalo, M., MYER, D., & Virtamo, J. R. K. (1990) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115743 · Cited by 147
COMPARING IMPERFECT MEASURES OF EXPOSURE
WALKER, A., & Blettner, M. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114049 · Cited by 109
Blind Assignment of Exposure Does Not Always Prevent Differential Misclassification
Wacholder, S., Dosemeci, M., & Lubin, J. H. (1991) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116105 · Cited by 77
ON THE DISTORTION OF RISK ESTIMATES IN MULTIPLE EXPOSURE LEVEL CASE-CONTROL STUDIES
Marshall, J. R., Priore, R. L., Graham, S., & Brasure, J. (1981) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113114 · Cited by 57
The use of dual or multiple reports in epidemiologic studies
Marshall, J. R. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080904 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Barr, D. B., Wilder, L. C., Caudill, S. P., Gonzalez, A. J., Needham, L. L., & Pirkle, J. L. (2005) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.7337 · Cited by 1,921
Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews
Hayden, J. A., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 · Cited by 1,452
Intentional weight loss and mortality among overweight individuals with diabetes.
Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T. J., Thun, M., Flanders, D., Pamuk, E., & Byers, T. (2000) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.23.10.1499 · Cited by 558
Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data
Greenland, S. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00349.x · Cited by 497
Schwarzinger, M., Pollock, B. G., Hasan, O. S. M., Dufouil, C., Rehm, J., Baillot, S., Guibert, Q., Planchet, F., & Luchini, S. (2018) · The Lancet Public Health · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30022-7 · Cited by 356
Metadata
- Authors
- Flegal, K. M., Keyl, P. M., & Nieto, F. J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-11-15
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1233-1246
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W1950434717
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 7.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differential Misclassification Arising from Nondifferential Errors in Exposure Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116026
- The paper
- Flegal, K. M., Keyl, P. M., & Nieto, F. J. (1991). Differential Misclassification Arising from Nondifferential Errors in Exposure Measurement. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116026
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
