Search

In this paper, we present a practical approach for computing the sandwich variance estimator in 2-stage regression model settings. As a motivating example for 2-stage regression, we consider regression calibration, a popular approach for addressing covariate measurement error. The sandwich variance approach has rarely been applied in regression calibration, despite its requiring less computation time than popular resampling approaches for variance estimation, specifically the bootstrap. This is probably because it requires specialized statistical coding. Here we first outline the steps needed to compute the sandwich variance estimator. We then develop a convenient method of computation in R for sandwich variance estimation, which leverages standard regression model outputs and existing R functions and can be applied in the case of a simple random sample or complex survey design. We use a simulation study to compare the sandwich estimator to a resampling variance approach for both settings. Finally, we further compare these 2 variance estimation approaches in data examples from the Women's Health Initiative (1993–2005) and the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (2008–2011). In our simulations, the sandwich variance estimator typically had good numerical performance, but simple Wald bootstrap confidence intervals were unstable or overcovered in certain settings, particularly when there was high correlation between covariates or large measurement error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of tools for power and sample-size calculations for mediation analysis has lagged far behind the development of methods. The accompanying paper by Rudolph et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(12):1559–1567) is a helpful contribution in using simulations as a tool for power calculations for more complex methods and settings. Much work remains to be done in the development of easy-to-use packages and simple online websites for carrying out power and sample-size calculations for mediation analysis. Much remains to be learned with respect to the relative power of different methods in different settings. There will likely be feedback between these 2 important frontiers of the tools we have available and of our understanding of power when conducting mediation analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiologists often compare the observed number of deaths in a cohort with the expected number of deaths, obtained by multiplying person-time accrued in the cohort by mortality rates for a reference population (ideally, a reference that represents the mortality rate in the cohort in the absence of exposure). However, if exposure is hazardous (or salutary), this calculation will not consistently estimate the number of deaths expected in the absence of exposure because exposure will have affected the distribution of person-time observed in the study cohort. While problems with interpretation of this standard calculation of expected counts were discussed more than 2 decades ago, these discussions had little impact on epidemiologic practice. The logic of counterfactuals may help clarify this topic as we revisit these issues. In this paper, we describe a simple way to consistently estimate the expected number of deaths in such settings, and we illustrate the approach using data from a cohort study of mortality among underground miners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cohort mortality studies, there often is interest in associations between an exposure of primary interest and mortality due to a range of different causes. A standard approach to such analyses involves fitting a separate regression model for each type of outcome. However, the statistical precision of some estimated associations may be poor because of sparse data. In this paper, we describe a hierarchical regression model for estimation of parameters describing outcome-specific relative rate functions and associated credible intervals. The proposed model uses background stratification to provide flexible control for the outcome-specific associations of potential confounders, and it employs a hierarchical “shrinkage” approach to stabilize estimates of an exposure’s associations with mortality due to different causes of death. The approach is illustrated in analyses of cancer mortality in 2 cohorts: a cohort of dioxin-exposed US chemical workers and a cohort of radiation-exposed Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Compared with standard regression estimates of associations, hierarchical regression yielded estimates with improved precision that tended to have less extreme values. The hierarchical regression approach also allowed the fitting of models with effect-measure modification. The proposed hierarchical approach can yield estimates of association that are more precise than conventional estimates when one wishes to estimate associations with multiple outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As pellagra reached epidemic proportions in the United States in the early 20th century, 2 teams of investigators assessed its incidence in cotton mill villages in South Carolina. The first, the Thompson-McFadden Commission, concluded that pellagra was likely infectious. The second, a Public Health Service investigation led by Joseph Goldberger, concluded that pellagra was caused by a dietary deficiency. In this paper, we recount the history of the 2 investigations and consider how the differences between the 2 studies' designs, measurements, analyses, and interpretations led to different conclusions. Because the novel dietary assessment strategy was a key feature of the Public Health Service's study design, we incorporated simulated measurement error in a reanalysis of the Public Health Service's data to assess whether this specific difference affected the divergent conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]