Effects of Measurement Errors on Estimates of Exposure-Response Relationships
Establishing a causal association between an occupational exposure and the incidence of cancer requires the consideration of many criteria. One of these is whether an association between level of exposure and risk has been demonstrated. For this purpose an association between an ordinal measure of exposure (e.g. three exposure categories) and risk is generally considered sufficient. Once a causal association has been established with reasonable certainty, interest often focusses on a more quantitative relationship between an absolute measure of exposure and risk — for a given quantity of exposure, what is the increase in risk? In particular, estimates of such relationships are required to inform the process of setting standards for “acceptable” limits of exposure. This paper is relevant mainly to these quantitative estimates of exposure-response relationships.
KeywordsStandardize Mortality Ratio Measurement Error Model Measurement Error Variance True Exposure Covariate Measurement Error
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Clayton DG (1988) Models for the analysis of cohort and case-control studies with inaccurately measured exposures. In: Dwyer JH, Lippert P, Feinleib M, Hoffmeister H (eds) Statistical models for longitudinal studies of health. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kelsey JL, Thompson WD, Evans AS (1986) Methods in observational epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 285–308Google Scholar
- Kendall M, Stuart A (1979) The advanced theory of statistics vol 2. MacMillan, New York, pp 399–443Google Scholar
- Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Iowa, pp 164–167Google Scholar
- Thériault G, Tremblay C, Cordier S, Gingras S (1984) Bladder cancer in the aluminium industry. Lancet is 947–950Google Scholar
- Whittemore AS, Grosser S (1986) Regression methods for data with incomplete covariates. In: Moolgavkar SH, Prentice RR (eds) Modern statistical methods in chronic disease epidemiology. Wiley, New York, pp 19–34Google Scholar