Cited by 1,021Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Epidemiologic evaluation of measurement data in the presence of detection limits

Open access
Lubin, Jay H., Colt, Joanne S., Camann, David, Davis, Scott, Cerhan, James R., Severson, Richard K., Bernstein, Leslie, Hartge, Patricia·2004·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Quantitative measurements of environmental factors greatly improve the quality of epidemiologic studies but can pose challenges because of the presence of upper or lower detection limits or interfering compounds, which do not allow for precise measured values. We consider the regression of an environmental measurement (dependent variable) on several covariates (independent variables). Various strategies are commonly employed to impute values for interval-measured data, including assignment of one-half the detection limit to nondetected values or of "fill-in" values randomly selected from an appropriate distribution. On the basis of a limited simulation study, we found that the former approach can be biased unless the percentage of measurements below detection limits is small (5-10%). The fill-in approach generally produces unbiased parameter estimates but may produce biased variance estimates and thereby distort inference when 30% or more of the data are below detection limits. Truncated data methods (e.g., Tobit regression) and multiple imputation offer two unbiased approaches for analyzing measurement data with detection limits. If interest resides solely on regression parameters, then Tobit regression can be used. If individualized values for measurements below detection limits are needed for additional analysis, such as relative risk regression or graphical display, then multiple imputation produces unbiased estimates and nominal confidence intervals unless the proportion of missing data is extreme. We illustrate various approaches using measurements of pesticide residues in carpet dust in control subjects from a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.7199

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Zero-value or LOD imputation, like mean imputation, may distort feature distributions and lead to biased parameter and variability estimates.

    “However, like mean imputation, imputed values from these approaches may distort feature distributions and lead to biased parameter and variability estimates (Lubin et al., 2004; Succop et al., 2004; Webb-Robertson et al., 2015; Lazar et al., 2016; Bramer et al., 2020).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 1,021

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ligman B Shaughnessy R Kleinerman R Lubin J Fisher E Wang ZY 2004. Indoor air pollution characterization of underground dwellings in China, 1997. Blacksburg, VA:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Press, 51–56.

Authors
Lubin, J. H., Colt, J. S., Camann, D., Davis, S., Cerhan, J. R., Severson, R. K., Bernstein, L., & Hartge, P.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Southwest Research Institute (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2004-09-13
Volume
112
Issue
17
Pages
1691-1696
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2027794314
Cited by
1,021
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 46
FWCI
14.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01pc067010-004, n01pc067009-004, n01pc065064-017, n01pc067008-014)
  • National Cancer Institute (N02-PC-71 105, N01-PC-67010, N01 PC-67009, N01 PC 67008, N01‐PC‐65064)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
detection limit, interval-censored data, missing data imputation, Tobit model, multiple imputation, measurement error, pesticide residues, carpet dust, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, environmental exposure measurement
MeSH terms
Dust, Environmental Exposure, Environmental Pollutants, Floors and Floorcoverings, Humans, Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin, Regression Analysis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Epidemiologic Studies, Case-Control Studies

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