Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on December 21, 2005
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2006 50(3):271-279; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mei073
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
50/3/271    most recent
mei073v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BURSTYN, I.
Right arrow Articles by YASUI, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BURSTYN, I.
Right arrow Articles by YASUI, Y.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2005 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press


Original Article

Metamodels of bias in Cox proportional-hazards and logistic regressions with heteroscedastic measurement error under group-level exposure assessment

I. BURSTYN*, H-M. KIM, N. CHERRY and Y. YASUI

Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Igor.Burstyn{at}ualberta.ca

In occupational epidemiology, group-based exposure assessment entails estimating the average exposure level in a group of workers and assigning the average to all members of the group. The assigned exposure values can be used in epidemiological analyses and have been shown to produce virtually unbiased relative-risk estimates in many situations. Although the group-based exposure assessment continues to be used widely, it is unclear whether it produces unbiased relative-risk estimates in all circumstance, specifically in Cox proportional-hazards and logistic regressions when between-worker variance is not constant but proportional to the true group mean. This question is important because (i) between-worker variance has been shown to differ among exposure groups in occupational epidemiological studies and (ii) recent theoretical work has suggested that bias may exist in such situations. We conducted computer simulations of occupational epidemiological studies to address this question and analysed simulation results using ‘metamodelling’. The results indicate that small-to-negligible bias can be expected to result from heteroscedastic between-worker variance. Cox proportional-hazards models can produce attenuated risk estimates, while logistic regression may result in overestimation of risk gradient. Bias caused by ignoring the heteroscedastic measurement error is unlikely to be large enough to alter the conclusion about the direction of exposure-disease association in occupational epidemiology.

Keywords: occupational epidemiology • ecological variable • log–log exposure-response model • variance components • computer simulation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
I. Burstyn, H. Kromhout, C. Johansen, S. Langard, T. Kauppinen, J. Shaham, G. Ferro, and P. Boffetta
Bladder cancer incidence and exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons among asphalt pavers
Occup. Environ. Med., August 1, 2007; 64(8): 520 - 526.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.