SharePoint
Aide
Faire avancer la sûreté nucléaire

La Recherchev2

Publications

The performance of functional methods for correcting non-Gaussian measurement error within Poisson regression: corrected excess risk of lung cancer mortality in relation to radon exposure among French uranium miners


Fermer

Authentification

Email :

Mot de passe :

Statistics in medicine / Volume 31, Issue 30, pages 4428-4443, décembre 2012

Type de document > *Article de revue

Mots clés >

Unité de recherche > IRSN/PRP-HOM/SRBE/LEPID

Auteurs > ALLODJI Sètchéou Rodrigue, THIÉBAUT Anne, LEURAUD Klervi, RAGE Estelle, HENRY Stéphane, LAURIER Dominique, BÉNICHOU Jacques

Date de publication > 30/12/2012

Résumé

A broad variety of methods for measurement error (ME) correction have been developed, but these methods have rarely been applied possibly because their ability to correct ME is poorly understood. We carried out a simulation study to assess the performance of three error-correction methods: two variants of regression calibration (the substitution method and the estimation calibration method) and the simulation extrapolation (SIMEX) method. Features of the simulated cohorts were borrowed from the French Uranium Miners’ Cohort in which exposure to radon had been documented from 1946 to 1999. In the absence of ME correction, we observed a severe attenuation of the true effect of radon exposure, with a negative relative bias of the order of 60% on the excess relative risk of lung cancer death. In the main scenario considered, that is, when ME characteristics previously determined as most plausible from the French Uranium Miners’ Cohort were used both to generate exposure data and to correct for ME at the analysis stage, all three error-correction methods showed a noticeable but partial reduction of the attenuation bias, with a slight advantage for the SIMEX method. However, the performance of the three correction methods highly depended on the accurate determination of the characteristics of ME. In particular, we encountered severe overestimation in some scenarios with the SIMEX method, and we observed lack of correction with the three methods in some other scenarios. For illustration, we also applied and compared the proposed methods on the real data set from the French Uranium Miners’ Cohort study.