The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correcting for Regression Dilution Bias: Comparison of Methods for a Single Predictor Variable
Abstract
Summary: In an epidemiological study the regression slope between a response and predictor variable is underestimated when the predictor variable is measured imprecisely. Repeat measurements of the predictor in individuals in a subset of the study or in a separate study can be used to estimate a multiplicative factor to correct for this ‘regression dilution bias’. In applied statistics publications various methods have been used to estimate this correction factor. Here we compare six different estimation methods and explain how they fall into two categories, namely regression and correlation-based methods. We provide new asymptotic variance formulae for the optimal correction factors in each category, when these are estimated from the repeat measurements subset alone, and show analytically and by simulation that the correlation method of choice gives uniformly lower variance. The simulations also show that, when the correction factor is not much greater than 1, this correlation method gives a correction factor which is closer to the true value than that from the best regression method on up to 80% of occasions. We also provide a variance formula for a modified correlation method which uses the standard deviation of the predictor variable in the main study; this shows further improved performance provided that the correction factor is not too extreme. A confidence interval for a corrected regression slope in an epidemiological study should reflect the imprecision of both the uncorrected slope and the estimated correction factor. We provide formulae for this and show that, particularly when the correction factor is large and the size of the subset of repeat measures is small, the effect of allowing for imprecision in the estimated correction factor can be substantial.
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
Elliott, P., Stamler, J., Nichols, R., Dyer, A. R., Stamler, R., Kesteloot, H., & Marmot, M. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1249 · Cited by 855
Verschuren, W. M. M. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530020049031 · Cited by 573
Phillips, A. N., & Smith, G. D. (1991) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90155-3 · Cited by 275 · cited 1×
“For univariate logistic and survival regression analyses involving a predictor variable that is subject to random error, it has been shown by Rosner et al. (1989) and Hughes (1993) respectively that the form of the relationship is not exactly preserved as in linear regression.”
Method
Cited by
A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two‐sample summary data Mendelian randomization
Bowden, J., Del Greco M, F., Minelli, C., Davey Smith, G., Sheehan, N., & Thompson, J. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7221 · Cited by 1,887
Bias due to participant overlap in two‐sample Mendelian randomization
Burgess, S., Davies, N. M., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21998 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationRobust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture
Schlenker, W., & Lobell, D. B. (2010) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014010 · Cited by 1,492
Pierce, B. L., & Burgess, S. (2013) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwt084 · Cited by 1,389
Burgess, S., Dudbridge, F., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6835 · Cited by 1,153
Self-citationThe UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56)
STEVENS, R. J., KOTHARI, V., ADLER, A. I., & STRATTON, I. M. (2001) · Clinical Science · doi:10.1042/cs20000335 · Cited by 1,084
Assessment of the cortisol awakening response: Expert consensus guidelines
Stalder, T., Kirschbaum, C., Kudielka, B. M., Adam, E. K., Pruessner, J. C., Wüst, S., Dockray, S., Smyth, N., Evans, P., Hellhammer, D. H., et al. (2016) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.10.010 · Cited by 967
Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line‐fitting
Smith, R. J. (2009) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.21090 · Cited by 724
Machine learning and AI in marketing–Connecting computing power to human insights
Ma, L., & Sun, B. (2020) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.005 · Cited by 602
Celis-Morales, C. A., Perez-Bravo, F., Ibañez, L., Salas, C., Bailey, M. E. S., & Gill, J. M. R. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036345 · Cited by 486
Kothari (2002) · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000020091.07144.c7 · Cited by 420
Kivimäki, M., Singh-Manoux, A., Pentti, J., Sabia, S., Nyberg, S. T., Alfredsson, L., Goldberg, M., Knutsson, A., Koskenvuo, M., Koskinen, A., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l1495 · Cited by 313
Blond, K., Brinkløv, C. F., Ried-Larsen, M., Crippa, A., & Grøntved, A. (2020) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100393 · Cited by 201
Human telomere biology: pitfalls of moving from the laboratory to epidemiology
Aviv, A., Valdes, A. M., & Spector, T. D. (2006) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyl169 · Cited by 172
Spitzer, M. W. H., & Musslick, S. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255629 · Cited by 138
Adjustment for index event bias in genome-wide association studies of subsequent events.
Dudbridge, F., Allen, R. J., Sheehan, N. A., Schmidt, A. F., Lee, J. C., Jenkins, R. G., Wain, L. V., Hingorani, A. D., & Patel, R. S. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09381-w · Cited by 115
Schwartz, J. E., Muntner, P., Kronish, I. M., Burg, M. M., Pickering, T. G., Bigger, J. T., & Shimbo, D. (2020) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.039 · Cited by 108
Bennett, D. A., Landry, D., Little, J., & Minelli, C. (2017) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0421-6 · Cited by 85
Ratios: A short guide to confidence limits and proper use
Franz, V. H. (2007) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0710.2024 · Cited by 48
Adiposity, fat-free mass and incident heart failure in 500 000 individuals
Oguntade, A. S., Taylor, H., Lacey, B., & Lewington, S. (2024) · Open Heart · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2024-002711 · Cited by 31
“25 26 As such, in this analysis, RDRs were calculated using the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted Pearson partial correlations (r) between baseline and resurvey measures (4.3 years after baseline visit) in 17 450 individuals of the present analysis who attended both visits (online supplemental table…”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Frost, C., & Thompson, S. G.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-189
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-985X
- OpenAlex
- W2153900817
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.38
- 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
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.
