The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Imputation for Exposure Histories with Gaps, under an Excess Relative Risk Model
Abstract
In reconstructing exposure histories needed to calculate cumulative exposures, gaps often occur. Our investigation was motivated by case-control studies of residential radon exposure and lung cancer, where half or more of the targeted homes may not be measurable. Investigators have adopted various schemes for imputing exposures for such gaps. We first undertook simulations to assess the performance of five such methods under an excess relative risk model, in the presence of random missingness and under assumed independence among the true exposure levels for different epochs of exposure (houses). Assuming no other source of measurement error, one of the methods performed without bias and with coverage of nominally 95% confidence intervals that was close to 95%. This method assigns to the missing residences the arithmetic mean across all measured control residences. We show that its good properties can be explained by the fact that this approach produces approximate "Berkson errors." To take advantage of predictive information that might exist about the missing epochs of exposure, one might prefer to carry out the imputations within strata. In further simulations, we asked whether the method would still perform well if imputations were carried out within many strata. It does, and much of the lost statistical power/precision can be recovered if the stratification system is moderately predictive of the missing exposures. Thus, observed control mean imputation provides a way to impute missing exposures without corrupting the study's validity; and stratifying the imputations can enhance precision. The technique is applicable in other settings where exposure histories contain gaps.
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
Cited by
A structural approach to selection bias
Hernán, M. A., Hernández-Díaz, S., & Robins, J. M. (2004) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43 · Cited by 2,844
Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies.
Schisterman, E. F., Cole, S. R., & Platt, R. W. (2009) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181a819a1 · Cited by 2,096
Carroll, L., Cassidy, J. D., Peloso, P., Borg, J., von Holst, H., Holm, L., Paniak, C., & Pépin, M. (2004) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1080/16501960410023859 · Cited by 1,326
Epidemiology and etiology of gliomas
Ohgaki, H., & Kleihues, P. (2005) · Acta Neuropathologica · doi:10.1007/s00401-005-0991-y · Cited by 1,252
Muller, C. J., & MacLehose, R. F. (2014) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyu029 · Cited by 775
Metadata
- Authors
- Weinberg, C. R., Moledor, E. S., Umbach, D. M., & Sandler, D. P.
- Venue
- Epidemiology
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 490-497
- ISSN
- 1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065889668
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.56
- 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: Imputation for Exposure Histories with Gaps, under an Excess Relative Risk Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00001648-199609000-00007
- The paper
- Weinberg, C. R., Moledor, E. S., Umbach, D. M., & Sandler, D. P. (1996). Imputation for Exposure Histories with Gaps, under an Excess Relative Risk Model. Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199609000-00007
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.