Application of a Web-based Tool for Quantitative Bias Analysis: The Example of Misclassification Due to Self-reported Body Mass Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We describe the use of Apisensr, a web-based application that can be used to implement quantitative bias analysis for misclassification, selection bias, and unmeasured confounding. We apply Apisensr using an example of exposure misclassification bias due to use of self-reported body mass index (BMI) to define obesity status in an analysis of the relationship between obesity and diabetes. METHODS: We used publicly available data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The analysis consisted of: (1) estimating bias parameter values (sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value) for self-reported obesity by sex, age, and race-ethnicity compared to obesity defined by measured BMI, and (2) using Apisensr to adjust for exposure misclassification. RESULTS: The discrepancy between self-reported and measured obesity varied by demographic group (sensitivity range: 75%-89%; specificity range: 91%-99%). Using Apisensr for quantitative bias analysis, there was a clear pattern in the results: the relationship between obesity and diabetes was underestimated using self-report in all age, sex, and race-ethnicity categories compared to measured obesity. For example, in non-Hispanic White men aged 40-59 years, prevalence odds ratios for diabetes were 3.06 (95% confidence inerval = 1.78, 5.30) using self-reported BMI and 4.11 (95% confidence interval = 2.56, 6.75) after bias analysis adjusting for misclassification. CONCLUSION: Apisensr is an easy-to-use, web-based Shiny app designed to facilitate quantitative bias analysis. Our results also provide estimates of bias parameter values that can be used by other researchers interested in examining obesity defined by self-reported BMI.
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 | 0.132 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".