Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H Küchenhoff

Publications and source records attributed to H Küchenhoff.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

On the potential of measurement error to induce differential bias on odds ratio estimates: an example from radon epidemiology.

It is well established that odds ratios estimated by logistic regression are subject to bias if exposure is measured with error. The dependence of this bias on exposure parameter values, particularly for multiplicative measurement error, and its implications in epidemiology are not, however, as fully acknowledged. We have been motivated by a German West case-control study on lung cancer and residential radon, where restriction to a subgroup exhibiting larger mean and variance of exposure than the entire group has shown higher odds ratio estimates as compared to the full analysis. By means of correction formulae and simulations, we show that bias from additive classical type error depends on the exposure variance, not on the exposure mean, and that bias from multiplicative classical type error depends on the geometric standard deviation (in other words on the coefficient of variation of exposure), but not on the geometric mean of exposure. Bias from additive or multiplicative Berkson type error is independent of exposure distribution parameters. This indicates that there is a potential of differential bias between groups where these parameters vary. Such groups are commonly compared in epidemiology: for example when the results of subgroup analyses are contrasted or meta-analyses are performed. For the German West radon study, we show that the difference of measurement error bias between the subgroup and the entire group exhibits the same direction but not the same dimension as the observed results. Regarding meta-analysis of five European radon studies, we find that a study such as this German study will necessarily result in smaller odds ratio estimates than other studies due to the smaller exposure variance and coefficient of variation of exposure. Therefore, disregard of measurement error can not only lead to biased estimates, but also to inconsistent results and wrongly concluded effect differences between groups.

Air Pollutants, Radioactive↗
PubMed2001

Bayesian analysis of logistic regression with an unknown change point and covariate measurement error.

We discuss Bayesian estimation of a logistic regression model with an unknown threshold limiting value (TLV). In these models it is assumed that there is no effect of a covariate on the response under a certain unknown TLV. The estimation of these models in a Bayesian context by Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods is considered with focus on the TLV. We extend the model by accounting for measurement error in the covariate. The Bayesian solution is compared with the likelihood solution proposed by Küchenhoff and Carroll using a data set concerning the relationship between dust concentration in the working place and the occurrence of chronic bronchitis.

Bayes Theorem↗
PubMed1997

Perinatal mortality in Germany following the Chernobyl accident.

Perinatal mortality in Germany was investigated with respect to a possible relationship to the nuclear accident in Chernobyl on April 26, 1986. Using annual data of perinatal mortality, a trend analysis based on an appropriately chosen statistical model was performed which showed a significant increase in 1987. In addition, we calculated the cesium concentration in women's bodies using data of the cesium concentration in milk. We found two peaks of cesium concentration that were associated with the observed two peaks of monthly perinatal mortality data with a delay of 7 months.

Cesium Radioisotopes↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Segmented regression with errors in predictors: semi-parametric and parametric methods.

We consider the estimation of parameters in a particular segmented generalized linear model with additive measurement error in predictors, with a focus on linear and logistic regression. In epidemiologic studies segmented regression models often occur as threshold models, where it is assumed that the exposure has no influence on the response up to a possibly unknown threshold. Furthermore, in occupational and environmental studies the exposure typically cannot be measured exactly. Ignoring this measurement error leads to asymptotically biased estimators of the threshold. It is shown that this asymptotic bias is different from that observed for estimating standard generalized linear model parameters in the presence of measurement error, being both larger and in different directions than expected. In most cases considered the threshold is asymptotically underestimated. Two standard general methods for correcting for this bias are considered; regression calibration and simulation extrapolation (simex). In ordinary logistic and linear regression these procedures behave similarly, but in the threshold segmented regression model they operate quite differently. The regression calibration estimator usually has more bias but less variance than the simex estimator. Regression calibration and simex are typically thought of as functional methods, also known as semi-parametric methods, because they make no assumptions about the distribution of the unobservable covariate X. The contrasting structural, parametric maximum likelihood estimate assumes a parametric distributional form for X. In ordinary linear regression there is typically little difference between structural and functional methods. One of the major, surprising findings of our study is that in threshold regression, the functional and structural methods differ substantially in their performance. In one of our simulations, approximately consistent functional estimates can be as much as 25 times more variable than the maximum likelihood estimate for a properly specified parametric model. Structural (parametric) modelling ought not be a neglected tool in measurement error models. An example involving dust concentration and bronchitis in a mechanical engineering plant in Munich is used to illustrate the results.

Bias↗