MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805399879 · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000000863

Stratified Probabilistic Bias Analysis for Body Mass Index–related Exposure Misclassification in Postmenopausal Women

2018· article· en· W2805399879 on OpenAlex
Hailey R. Banack, Andrew Stokes, Matthew P. Fox, Kathleen M. Hovey, Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano, Erin S. LeBlanc, Chloe E. Bird, Bette J. Caan, Candyce H. Kroenke, Matthew Allison, Scott B. Going, Linda Snetselaar, Ting‐Yuan David Cheng, Rowan T. Chlebowski, Marcia L. Stefanick, Michael J. LaMonte, Jean Wactawski‐Wende

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBody mass indexObesityMedicineConfidence intervalDemographyClassification of obesityStatisticsGerontologyInternal medicineMathematicsFat mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is widespread concern about the use of body mass index (BMI) to define obesity status in postmenopausal women because it may not accurately represent an individual's true obesity status. The objective of the present study is to examine and adjust for exposure misclassification bias from using an indirect measure of obesity (BMI) compared with a direct measure of obesity (percent body fat). METHODS: We used data from postmenopausal non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white women in the Women's Health Initiative (n=126,459). Within the Women's Health Initiative, a sample of 11,018 women were invited to participate in a sub-study involving dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans. We examined indices of validity comparing BMI-defined obesity (≥30 kg/m), with obesity defined by percent body fat. We then used probabilistic bias analysis models stratified by age and race to explore the effect of exposure misclassification on the obesity-mortality relationship. RESULTS: Validation analyses highlight that using a BMI cutpoint of 30 kg/m to define obesity in postmenopausal women is associated with poor validity. There were notable differences in sensitivity by age and race. Results from the stratified bias analysis demonstrated that failing to adjust for exposure misclassification bias results in attenuated estimates of the obesity-mortality relationship. For example, in non-Hispanic white women 50-59 years of age, the conventional risk difference was 0.017 (95% confidence interval = 0.01, 0.023) and the bias-adjusted risk difference was 0.035 (95% simulation interval = 0.028, 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the importance of using quantitative bias analysis techniques to account for nondifferential exposure misclassification of BMI-defined obesity. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B385.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it