Weighted estimation for confounded binary outcomes subject to misclassification

A Capture-Recapture-based Ascertainment Probability Weighting Method for Effect Estimation With Under-ascertained Outcomes

Outcome under-ascertainment, characterized by the incomplete identification or reporting of cases, poses a substantial challenge in epidemiologic research. While capture-recapture methods can estimate unknown case numbers, their role in estimating exposure effects in observational studies is not well established. This paper presents an ascertainment probability weighting framework that integrates capture-recapture and propensity score weighting. We propose a nonparametric estimator of effects on binary outcomes that combines exposure propensity scores with data from two conditionally independent outcome measurements to simultaneously adjust for confounding and under-ascertainment. Demonstrating its practical application, we apply the method to estimate the relationship between health care work and coronavirus disease 2019 testing in a Swedish region. We find that ascertainment probability weighting greatly influences the estimated association compared to conventional inverse probability weighting, underscoring the importance of accounting for under-ascertainment in studies with limited outcome data coverage. We conclude with practical guidelines for the method's implementation, discussing its strengths, limitations, and suitable scenarios for application.

Differential recall bias in estimating treatment effects in observational studies

Observational studies are frequently used to estimate the effect of an exposure or treatment on an outcome. To obtain an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect, it is crucial to measure the exposure accurately. A common type of exposure misclassification is recall bias, which occurs in retrospective cohort studies when study subjects may inaccurately recall their past exposure. Particularly challenging is differential recall bias in the context of self-reported binary exposures, where the bias may be directional rather than random and its extent varies according to the outcomes experienced. This paper makes several contributions: (1) it establishes bounds for the average treatment effect even when a validation study is not available; (2) it proposes multiple estimation methods across various strategies predicated on different assumptions; and (3) it suggests a sensitivity analysis technique to assess the robustness of the causal conclusion, incorporating insights from prior research. The effectiveness of these methods is demonstrated through simulation studies that explore various model misspecification scenarios. These approaches are then applied to investigate the effect of childhood physical abuse on mental health in adulthood.

When Does Differential Outcome Misclassification Matter for Estimating Prevalence?

BACKGROUND

When accounting for misclassification, investigators make assumptions about whether misclassification is "differential" or "nondifferential." Most guidance on differential misclassification considers settings where outcome misclassification varies across levels of exposure, or vice versa. Here, we examine when covariate-differential misclassification must be considered when estimating overall outcome prevalence.

METHODS

We generated datasets with outcome misclassification under five data generating mechanisms. In each, we estimated prevalence using estimators that (a) ignored misclassification, (b) assumed misclassification was nondifferential, and (c) allowed misclassification to vary across levels of a covariate. We compared bias and precision in estimated prevalence in the study sample and an external target population using different sources of validation data to account for misclassification. We illustrated use of each approach to estimate HIV prevalence using self-reported HIV status among people in East Africa cross-border areas.

RESULTS

The estimator that allowed misclassification to vary across levels of the covariate produced results with little bias for both populations in all scenarios but had higher variability when the validation study contained sparse strata. Estimators that assumed nondifferential misclassification produced results with little bias when the covariate distribution in the validation data matched the covariate distribution in the target population; otherwise estimates assuming nondifferential misclassification were biased.

CONCLUSIONS

If validation data are a simple random sample from the target population, assuming nondifferential outcome misclassification will yield prevalence estimates with little bias regardless of whether misclassification varies across covariates. Otherwise, obtaining valid prevalence estimates requires incorporating covariates into the estimators used to account for misclassification.

Postmyocardial Infarction Statin Exposure and the Risk of Stroke with Weighting for Outcome Misclassification

BACKGROUND

Observational healthcare data can be used for drug safety and effectiveness research. The use of inverse probability of treatment weights (IPW) reduces measured confounding under the assumption of accurate measurement of the outcome variable; however, many datasets suffer from systematic outcome misclassification.

METHODS

We introduced a modification to IPW to correct for the presence of outcome misclassification. To demonstrate the utility of these modified weights in realistic settings, we investigated postmyocardial infarction statin use and the 1-year risk of stroke in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

RESULTS

We computed an IPW-adjusted odds ratio (OR = 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.48, 0.93). We employed a technique to modify IPW for the presence of outcome misclassification using linked hospital records for outcome validation (modified IPW adjusted OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.52, 1.15) and compared the results with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (pooled OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.74, 0.87). Finally, we present simulation studies to investigate the impact of model selection on bias reduction and variability.

CONCLUSION

Ignoring outcome misclassification yielded biased estimates whereas the use of the modified IPW approach produced encouraging results when compared with the meta-analytic RCT findings.

A weighting method for simultaneous adjustment for confounding and joint exposure-outcome misclassifications

Joint misclassification of exposure and outcome variables can lead to considerable bias in epidemiological studies of causal exposure-outcome effects. In this paper, we present a new maximum likelihood based estimator for marginal causal effects that simultaneously adjusts for confounding and several forms of joint misclassification of the exposure and outcome variables. The proposed method relies on validation data for the construction of weights that account for both sources of bias. The weighting estimator, which is an extension of the outcome misclassification weighting estimator proposed by Gravel and Platt (Weighted estimation for confounded binary outcomes subject to misclassification. Stat Med 2018; 37: 425–436), is applied to reinfarction data. Simulation studies were carried out to study its finite sample properties and compare it with methods that do not account for confounding or misclassification. The new estimator showed favourable large sample properties in the simulations. Further research is needed to study the sensitivity of the proposed method and that of alternatives to violations of their assumptions. The implementation of the estimator is facilitated by a new R function (ipwm) in an existing R package (mecor).

Flexibly Accounting for Exposure Misclassification With External Validation Data

Measurement error is common in epidemiology, but few studies use quantitative methods to account for bias due to mismeasurement. One potential barrier is that some intuitive approaches that readily combine with methods to account for other sources of bias, like multiple imputation for measurement error (MIME), rely on internal validation data, which are rarely available. Here, we present a reparameterized imputation approach for measurement error (RIME) that can be used with internal or external validation data. We illustrate the advantages of RIME over a naive approach that ignores measurement error and MIME using a hypothetical example and a series of simulation experiments. In both the example and simulations, we combine MIME and RIME with inverse probability weighting to account for confounding when estimating hazard ratios and counterfactual risk functions. MIME and RIME performed similarly when rich external validation data were available and the prevalence of exposure did not vary between the main study and the validation data. However, RIME outperformed MIME when validation data included only true and mismeasured versions of the exposure or when exposure prevalence differed between the data sources. RIME allows investigators to leverage external validation data to account for measurement error in a wide range of scenarios.

Causal inference with noisy data: Bias analysis and estimation approaches to simultaneously addressing missingness and misclassification in binary outcomes

Causal inference has been widely conducted in various fields and many methods have been proposed for different settings. However, for noisy data with both mismeasurements and missing observations, those methods often break down. In this paper, we consider a problem that binary outcomes are subject to both missingness and misclassification, when the interest is in estimation of the average treatment effects (ATE). We examine the asymptotic biases caused by ignoring missingness and/or misclassification and establish the intrinsic connections between missingness effects and misclassification effects on the estimation of ATE. We develop valid weighted estimation methods to simultaneously correct for missingness and misclassification effects. To provide protection against model misspecification, we further propose a doubly robust correction method which yields consistent estimators when either the treatment model or the outcome model is misspecified. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the proposed methods. An application to smoking cessation data is reported to illustrate the use of the proposed methods.

Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research

Epidemiologists are often confronted with datasets to analyse which contain measurement error due to, for instance, mistaken data entries, inaccurate recordings and measurement instrument or procedural errors. If the effect of measurement error is misjudged, the data analyses are hampered and the validity of the study's inferences may be affected. In this paper, we describe five myths that contribute to misjudgments about measurement error, regarding expected structure, impact and solutions to mitigate the problems resulting from mismeasurements. The aim is to clarify these measurement error misconceptions. We show that the influence of measurement error in an epidemiological data analysis can play out in ways that go beyond simple heuristics, such as heuristics about whether or not to expect attenuation of the effect estimates. Whereas we encourage epidemiologists to deliberate about the structure and potential impact of measurement error in their analyses, we also recommend exercising restraint when making claims about the magnitude or even direction of effect of measurement error if not accompanied by statistical measurement error corrections or quantitative bias analysis. Suggestions for alleviating the problems or investigating the structure and magnitude of measurement error are given.

An augmented estimation procedure for EHR-based association studies accounting for differential misclassification

OBJECTIVES

The ability to identify novel risk factors for health outcomes is a key strength of electronic health record (EHR)-based research. However, the validity of such studies is limited by error in EHR-derived phenotypes. The objective of this study was to develop a novel procedure for reducing bias in estimated associations between risk factors and phenotypes in EHR data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The proposed method combines the strengths of a gold-standard phenotype obtained through manual chart review for a small validation set of patients and an automatically-derived phenotype that is available for all patients but is potentially error-prone (hereafter referred to as the algorithm-derived phenotype). An augmented estimator of associations is obtained by optimally combining these 2 phenotypes. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the augmented estimator and conducted an analysis of risk factors for second breast cancer events using data on a cohort from Kaiser Permanente Washington.

RESULTS

The proposed method was shown to reduce bias relative to an estimator using only the algorithm-derived phenotype and reduce variance compared to an estimator using only the validation data.

DISCUSSION

Our simulation studies and real data application demonstrate that, compared to the estimator using validation data only, the augmented estimator has lower variance (ie, higher statistical efficiency). Compared to the estimator using error-prone EHR-derived phenotypes, the augmented estimator has smaller bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed estimator can effectively combine an error-prone phenotype with gold-standard data from a limited chart review in order to improve analyses of risk factors using EHR data.