Search

Variable selection in regression models is a particularly important issue in epidemiology, where one usually encounters observational studies. In contrast to randomized trials or experiments, confounding is often not controlled by the study design, but has to be accounted for by suitable statistical methods. For instance, when risk factors should be identified with unconfounded effect estimates, multivariable regression techniques can help to adjust for confounders. We investigated the current practice of variable selection in 4 major epidemiologic journals in 2019 and found that the majority of articles used subject-matter knowledge to determine a priori the set of included variables. In comparison with previous reviews from 2008 and 2015, fewer articles applied data-driven variable selection. Furthermore, for most articles the main aim of analysis was hypothesis-driven effect estimation in rather low-dimensional data situations (i.e. large sample size compared with the number of variables). Based on our results, we discuss the role of data-driven variable selection in epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we compared location data from a dedicated Global Positioning System (GPS) device with location data from smartphones. Data from the Interventions, Equity, and Action in Cities Team (INTERACT) Study, a study examining the impact of urban-form changes on health in 4 Canadian cities (Victoria, Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Montreal), were used. A total of 337 participants contributed data collected for about 6 months from the Ethica Data smartphone application (Ethica Data Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and the SenseDoc dedicated GPS (MobySens Technologies Inc. Montreal, Quebec, Canada) during the period 2017–2019. Participants recorded an average total of 14,781 Ethica locations (standard deviation, 19,353) and 197,167 SenseDoc locations (standard deviation, 111,868). Dynamic time warping and cross-correlation were used to examine the spatial and temporal similarity of GPS points. Four activity-space measures derived from the smartphone app and the dedicated GPS device were compared. Analysis showed that cross-correlations were above 0.8 at the 125-m resolution for the survey and day levels and increased as cell size increased. At the day or survey level, there were only small differences between the activity-space measures. Based on our findings, we recommend dedicated GPS devices for studies where the exposure and the outcome are both measured at high frequency and when the analysis will not be aggregate. When the exposure and outcome are measured or will be aggregated to the day level, the dedicated GPS device and the smartphone app provide similar results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]