Validation study methods for estimating odds ratio in \(2\times2\times J\) tables when exposure is misclassified (Q2262033): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Importer (talk | contribs)
Created a new Item
 
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Property / MaRDI profile type
 
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI publication profile / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / full work available at URL
 
Property / full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/170120 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / OpenAlex ID
 
Property / OpenAlex ID: W2067851090 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / Wikidata QID
 
Property / Wikidata QID: Q37449493 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Maximum-likelihood and closed-form estimators of epidemiologic measures under misclassifi\-ca\-tion / rank
 
Normal rank
links / mardi / namelinks / mardi / name
 

Latest revision as of 20:43, 9 July 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Validation study methods for estimating odds ratio in \(2\times2\times J\) tables when exposure is misclassified
scientific article

    Statements

    Validation study methods for estimating odds ratio in \(2\times2\times J\) tables when exposure is misclassified (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    16 March 2015
    0 references
    Summary: Misclassification of exposure variables in epidemiologic studies may lead to biased estimation of parameters and loss of power in statistical inferences. In this paper, the inverse matrix method, as an efficient method of the correction of odds ratio for the misclassification of a binary exposure, was generalized to nondifferential misclassification and \(2\times2\times J\) tables. Simple estimates for predictive values when misclassification is nondifferential are presented. Using them, we estimated the corrected log odds ratio and its variance for \(2\times2\times J\) tables, using the inverse matrix method. A two-step weighted likelihood method was also developed. Moreover, we compared the matrix and inverse matrix methods to the maximum likelihood (MLE) method using a simulation study. In all situations, the inverse matrix method proved to be more efficient than the matrix method. Matrix and inverse matrix methods for nondifferential situations are more efficient than differential misclassification. Although MLE is optimal among all of the methods, it is computationally difficult and requires programming. On the other hand, the inverse matrix method with a simple closed-form presents acceptable efficiency.
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references