Correction of odds ratios in case-control studies for exposure misclassification with partial knowledge of the degree of agreement among experts who assessed exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Estimates of association between exposures and diseases are often distorted by error in exposure classification. When the validity of exposure assessment is known, this can be used to adjust these estimates. When exposure is assessed by experts, even if validity is not known, we sometimes have information about interrater reliability. We present a Bayesian method for translating the knowledge of interrater reliability, which is often available, into knowledge about validity, which is often needed but not directly available, and applying this to correct odds ratios (OR). METHODS: The method allows for inclusion of observed potential confounders in the analysis, as is common in regression-based control for confounding. Our method uses a novel type of prior on sensitivity and specificity. The approach is illustrated with data from a case-control study of lung cancer risk and occupational exposure to diesel engine emissions, in which exposure assessment was made by detailed job history interviews with study subjects followed by expert judgement. RESULTS: Using interrater agreement measured by kappas (κ), we estimate sensitivity and specificity of exposure assessment and derive misclassification-corrected confounder-adjusted OR. Misclassification-corrected and confounder-adjusted OR obtained with the most defensible prior had a posterior distribution centre of 1.6 with 95% credible interval (Crl) 1.1 to 2.6. This was on average greater in magnitude than frequentist point estimate of 1.3 (95% Crl 1.0 to 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: The method yields insights into the degree of exposure misclassification and appears to reduce attenuation bias due to misclassification of exposure while the estimated uncertainty increased.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.411 | 0.781 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".