...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Epidemiology >Correction of Selection Bias in Survey Data: Is the Statistical Cure Worse Than the Bias?
【24h】

Correction of Selection Bias in Survey Data: Is the Statistical Cure Worse Than the Bias?

机译:调查数据中选择偏差的校正:统计治疗比偏差更差吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In previous articles in the American Journal of Epidemiology (Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177(5): 431-442) and American Journal of Public Health (Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(10): 1895-1901), Masters et al. reported age-specific hazard ratios for the contrasts in mortality rates between obesity categories. They corrected the observed hazard ratios for selection bias caused by what they postulated was the nonrepresentativeness of the participants in the National Health Interview Study that increased with age, obesity, and ill health. However, it is possible that their regression approach to remove the alleged bias has not produced, and in general cannot produce, sensible hazard ratio estimates. First, one must consider how many nonparticipants there might have been in each category of obesity and of age at entry and how much higher the mortality rates would have to be in nonparticipants than in participants in these same categories. What plausible set of numerical values would convert the ("biased") decreasing-with-age hazard ratios seen in the data into the ("unbiased") increasing-with-age ratios that they computed? Can these values be encapsulated in ( and can sensible values be recovered from) 1 additional internal variable in a regression model? Second, one must examine the age pattern of the hazard ratios that have been adjusted for selection. Without the correction, the hazard ratios are attenuated with increasing age. With it, the hazard ratios at older ages are considerably higher, but those at younger ages are well below 1. Third, one must test whether the regression approach suggested by Masters et al. would correct the nonrepresentativeness that increased with age and ill health that I introduced into real and hypothetical data sets. I found that the approach did not recover the hazard ratio patterns present in the unselected data sets: The corrections overshot the target at older ages and undershot it at lower ages.
机译:在以前的流行病学杂志中的先前文章中(AM ePiatemiol。2013年; 177(5):431-442)和美国公共卫生杂志(J公共卫生。2013; 103(10):1895-1901),大师等等。报告的年龄特异性危险比对于肥胖类别之间死亡率的对比。他们纠正了所观察到的选择偏差危险比,这些偏差是由国家卫生面试研究中的参与者的非特性,随着年龄,肥胖和健康的增加而增加的。然而,他们的回归方法可以消除所谓的偏差,并且一般不能产生明智的危险比估计。首先,人们必须考虑每类肥胖症和年龄在每类肥胖症和年龄的肥胖症和死亡率率高出多少非唾液化剂,而不是在这些相同类别中的参与者中占有多少。有哪些合理的数值将转换(“偏见”)减少与数据中的时代危险比(在数据中所见的(“无偏)”)增加,以至于它们计算的(“无偏见”)这些值是否可以封装在回归模型中的1个附加内部变量中的(并且可以恢复的值)中封装在一起?其次,必须检查已调整选择的危险比的年龄模式。没有修正,危险比率随着年龄的增加而衰减。有了它,老年人的危险比率相当高,但年轻岁的人远低于1.第三岁以下,必须测试硕士等人是否建议的回归方式。将纠正随着年龄和生病的健康而增加的非代表性,即我被引入真实和假设的数据集。我发现该方法没有恢复未选择的数据集中存在的危险比模式:校正在较旧的年龄以较旧的年龄越来越多,并在较低的年龄下发出。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号