Assessing and attenuating the impact of selection bias on spatial cluster detection studies

IF 2.1 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI:10.1016/j.sste.2024.100659
Joseph Boyle , Mary H. Ward , James R. Cerhan , Nathaniel Rothman , David C. Wheeler
{"title":"Assessing and attenuating the impact of selection bias on spatial cluster detection studies","authors":"Joseph Boyle ,&nbsp;Mary H. Ward ,&nbsp;James R. Cerhan ,&nbsp;Nathaniel Rothman ,&nbsp;David C. Wheeler","doi":"10.1016/j.sste.2024.100659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Spatial cluster analyses are commonly used in epidemiologic studies of case-control data to detect whether certain areas in a study region have an excess of disease risk. Case-control studies are susceptible to potential biases including selection bias, which can result from non-participation of eligible subjects in the study. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the effects of non-participation on the findings of spatial cluster analyses. In this paper, we perform a simulation study assessing the effect of non-participation on spatial cluster analysis using the local spatial scan statistic under a variety of scenarios that vary the location and rates of study non-participation and the presence and intensity of a zone of elevated risk for disease for simulated case-control studies. We find that geographic areas of lower participation among controls than cases can greatly inflate false-positive rates for identification of artificial spatial clusters. Additionally, we find that even modest non-participation outside of a true zone of elevated risk can decrease spatial power to identify the true zone. We propose a spatial algorithm to correct for potentially spatially structured non-participation that compares the spatial distributions of the observed sample and underlying population. We demonstrate its ability to markedly decrease false positive rates in the absence of elevated risk and resist decreasing spatial sensitivity to detect true zones of elevated risk. We apply our method to a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to the potential effects of non-participation in spatial cluster studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46645,"journal":{"name":"Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology","volume":"49 ","pages":"Article 100659"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877584524000261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Spatial cluster analyses are commonly used in epidemiologic studies of case-control data to detect whether certain areas in a study region have an excess of disease risk. Case-control studies are susceptible to potential biases including selection bias, which can result from non-participation of eligible subjects in the study. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the effects of non-participation on the findings of spatial cluster analyses. In this paper, we perform a simulation study assessing the effect of non-participation on spatial cluster analysis using the local spatial scan statistic under a variety of scenarios that vary the location and rates of study non-participation and the presence and intensity of a zone of elevated risk for disease for simulated case-control studies. We find that geographic areas of lower participation among controls than cases can greatly inflate false-positive rates for identification of artificial spatial clusters. Additionally, we find that even modest non-participation outside of a true zone of elevated risk can decrease spatial power to identify the true zone. We propose a spatial algorithm to correct for potentially spatially structured non-participation that compares the spatial distributions of the observed sample and underlying population. We demonstrate its ability to markedly decrease false positive rates in the absence of elevated risk and resist decreasing spatial sensitivity to detect true zones of elevated risk. We apply our method to a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to the potential effects of non-participation in spatial cluster studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估和减轻选择偏差对空间聚类检测研究的影响
空间聚类分析通常用于病例对照数据的流行病学研究,以检测研究区域中的某些地区是否存在过高的疾病风险。病例对照研究容易受到包括选择偏差在内的潜在偏差的影响,而选择偏差可能是由于符合条件的受试者未参与研究造成的。然而,目前还没有系统地评估不参与对空间聚类分析结果的影响。在本文中,我们进行了一项模拟研究,评估了在各种情况下未参与对空间聚类分析的影响,这些情况包括模拟病例对照研究中未参与研究的位置和比率以及疾病风险升高区的存在和强度。我们发现,对照组参与率低于病例的地理区域会大大提高人工空间集群识别的假阳性率。此外,我们还发现,在真正的风险升高区域之外,即使是适度的不参与,也会降低识别真正区域的空间能力。我们提出了一种校正潜在空间结构不参与的空间算法,该算法比较了观察样本和潜在人群的空间分布。我们展示了该算法在没有风险升高的情况下显著降低假阳性率的能力,以及抵御空间灵敏度下降以检测真正风险升高区域的能力。我们将这一方法应用于一项非霍奇金淋巴瘤的病例对照研究。我们的研究结果表明,在空间聚类研究中应更多地关注非参与的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology
Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.80%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Geospatial distribution of the adoption of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries Spatial modeling and risk assessment of chagas disease vector distribution in Espírito Santo, Brazil: A comprehensive approach for targeted control A fast approach for analyzing spatio-temporal patterns in ischemic heart disease mortality across US counties (1999–2021) Estimating subnational under-five mortality rates using a spatio-temporal Age-Period-Cohort model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1