Search

Pooling data from multiple studies improves estimation of exposure-disease associations through increased sample size. However, biomarker exposure measurements can vary substantially across laboratories and often require calibration to a reference assay prior to pooling. We develop two statistical methods for aggregating biomarker data from multiple studies: the full calibration method and the internalized method. The full calibration method calibrates all biomarker measurements regardless of the availability of reference laboratory measurements while the internalized method calibrates only non-reference laboratory measurements. We compare the performance of these two aggregation methods to two-stage methods. Furthermore, we compare the aggregated and two-stage methods when estimating the calibration curve from controls only or from a random sample of individuals from the study cohort. Our findings include the following: (1) Under random sampling for calibration, exposure effect estimates from the internalized method have a smaller mean squared error than those from the full calibration method. (2) Under the controls-only calibration design, the full calibration method yields effect estimates with the least bias. (3) The two-stage approaches produce average effect estimates that are similar to the full calibration method under a controls only calibration design and the internalized method under a random sample calibration design. We illustrate the methods in an application evaluating the relationship between circulating vitamin D levels and stroke risk in a pooling project of cohort studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fundamental goal of epidemiologic research is to investigate the relationship between exposures and disease risk. Cases of the disease are often considered a single outcome and assumed to share a common etiology. However, evidence indicates that many human diseases arise and evolve through a range of heterogeneous molecular pathologic processes, influenced by diverse exposures. Pathogenic heterogeneity has been considered in various neoplasms such as colorectal, lung, prostate, and breast cancers, leukemia and lymphoma, and non-neoplastic diseases, including obesity, type II diabetes, glaucoma, stroke, cardiovascular disease, autism, and autoimmune disease. In this article, we discuss analytic options for studying disease subtype heterogeneity, emphasizing methods for evaluating whether the association of a potential risk factor with disease varies by disease subtype. Methods are described for scenarios where disease subtypes are categorical and ordinal and for cohort studies, matched and unmatched case-control studies, and case-case study designs. For illustration, we apply the methods to a molecular pathological epidemiology study of alcohol intake and colon cancer risk by tumor LINE-1 methylation subtypes. User-friendly software to implement the methods is publicly available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nutrient intake is often measured with substantial error both in commonly used surrogate instruments such as a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and in gold standard-type instruments such as a diet record (DR). If there is a correlated error between the FFQ and DR, then standard measurement error correction methods based on regression calibration can produce biased estimates of the regression coefficient ( λ) of true intake on surrogate intake. However, if a biomarker exists and the error in the biomarker is independent of the error in the FFQ and DR, then the method of triads can be used to obtain unbiased estimates of λ, provided that there are replicate biomarker data on at least a subsample of validation study subjects. Because biomarker measurements are expensive, for a fixed budget, one can use a either design where a large number of subjects have one biomarker measure and only a small subsample is replicated or a design that has a smaller number of subjects and has most or all subjects validated. The purpose of this paper is to optimize the proportion of subjects with replicated biomarker measures, where optimization is with respect to minimizing the variance of [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Spearman (ρ s) and Kendall (τ) rank correlation coefficient are routinely used as measures of association between non-normally distributed random variables. However, confidence limits for ρ s are only available under the assumption of bivariate normality and for τ under the assumption of asymptotic normality of . In this paper, we introduce another approach for obtaining confidence limits for ρ s or τ based on the arcsin transformation of sample probit score correlations. This approach is shown to be applicable for an arbitrary bivariate distribution. The arcsin-based estimators for ρ s and τ (denoted by s, a, a) are shown to have asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) of 9/π2 compared with the usual estimators s and when ρ s and τ are, respectively, 0. In some nutritional applications, the Spearman rank correlation between nutrient intake as assessed by a reference instrument versus nutrient intake as assessed by a surrogate instrument is used as a measure of validity of the surrogate instrument. However, if only a single replicate (or a few replicates) are available for the reference instrument, then the estimated Spearman rank correlation will be downwardly biased due to measurement error. In this paper, we use the probit transformation as a tool for specifying an ANOVA-type model for replicate ranked data resulting in a point and interval estimate of a measurement error corrected rank correlation. This extends previous work by Rosner and Willett for obtaining point and interval estimates of measurement error corrected Pearson correlations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]