A Bayesian approach to strengthen inference for case‐control studies with multiple error‐prone exposure assessments

In case-control studies, exposure assessments are almost always error-prone. In the absence of a gold standard, two or more assessment approaches are often used to classify people with respect to exposure. Each imperfect assessment tool may lead to misclassification of exposure assignment; the exposure misclassification may be differential with respect to case status or not; and, the errors in exposure classification under the different approaches may be independent (conditional upon the true exposure status) or not. Although methods have been proposed to study diagnostic accuracy in the absence of a gold standard, these methods are infrequently used in case-control studies to correct exposure misclassification that is simultaneously differential and dependent. In this paper, we proposed a Bayesian method to estimate the measurement-error corrected exposure-disease association, accounting for both differential and dependent misclassification. The performance of the proposed method is investigated using simulations, which show that the proposed approach works well, as well as an application to a case-control study assessing the association between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.

[1]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Modeling the Conditional Dependence Between Multiple Diagnostic Tests , 2001, Biometrics.

[2]  P. Albert,et al.  A Cautionary Note on the Robustness of Latent Class Models for Estimating Diagnostic Error without a Gold Standard , 2004, Biometrics.

[3]  Jun-mo Nam,et al.  Comparison of asbestos exposure assessments by next-of-kin respondents, by an occupational hygienist, and by a job-exposure matrix from the National Occupational Hazard Survey. , 2005, American journal of industrial medicine.

[4]  H Kromhout,et al.  Performance of two general job-exposure matrices in a study of lung cancer morbidity in the Zutphen cohort. , 1992, American journal of epidemiology.

[5]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Equivalence of prospective and retrospective models in the Bayesian analysis of case-control studies , 2004 .

[6]  Irina Guseva Canu,et al.  Comparative assessing for radiological, chemical, and physical exposures at the French uranium conversion plant: Is uranium the only stressor? , 2009, International journal of hygiene and environmental health.

[7]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[8]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correction. , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[9]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Bayesian analysis of case-control studies with categorical covariates , 2001 .

[10]  S D Walter,et al.  Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Tony Fletcher,et al.  Assessing Exposure Misclassification by Expert Assessment in Multicenter Occupational Studies , 2003, Epidemiology.

[12]  I Yang,et al.  Latent variable modeling of diagnostic accuracy. , 1997, Biometrics.

[13]  M. Tan,et al.  Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. , 1996, Biometrics.

[14]  Ranjini Natarajan,et al.  Gibbs Sampling with Diffuse Proper Priors: A Valid Approach to Data-Driven Inference? , 1998 .

[15]  Huiping Xu,et al.  A Probit Latent Class Model with General Correlation Structures for Evaluating Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests , 2009, Biometrics.

[16]  P M Vacek,et al.  The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. , 1985, Biometrics.

[17]  Yaning Yang,et al.  Repeated measurement sampling in genetic association analysis with genotyping errors , 2007, Genetic epidemiology.

[18]  Wesley O Johnson,et al.  Identifiability of Models for Multiple Diagnostic Testing in the Absence of a Gold Standard , 2010, Biometrics.

[19]  Joseph G Ibrahim,et al.  Estimation and inference for case-control studies with multiple non-gold standard exposure assessments: with an occupational health application. , 2009, Biostatistics.

[20]  O Axelson,et al.  A validation of questionnaire information on occupational exposure and smoking. , 1982, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[21]  S. Walter,et al.  Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. , 1980, Biometrics.

[22]  K. Flegal,et al.  Differential misclassification arising from nondifferential errors in exposure measurement. , 1991, American journal of epidemiology.

[23]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[24]  J. Siemiatycki,et al.  Validation of expert assessment of occupational exposures. , 2003, American journal of industrial medicine.

[25]  Yinsheng Qu,et al.  A Model for Evaluating Sensitivity and Specificity for Correlated Diagnostic Tests in Efficacy Studies with an Imperfect Reference Test , 1998 .

[26]  M. Espeland,et al.  Using latent class models to characterize and assess relative error in discrete measurements. , 1989, Biometrics.

[27]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[28]  H Kromhout,et al.  Assessment of occupational exposures in a general population: comparison of different methods. , 1999, Occupational and environmental medicine.

[29]  Ricardo Cordeiro,et al.  Validade de histórias ocupacionais de informantes secundários , 2000 .

[30]  L. Kupper,et al.  Inferences About Exposure-Disease Associations Using Probability-of-Exposure Information , 1993 .