Yuzi Zhang, Lin Ge, Lance A. Waller, Robert H. Lyles
{"title":"疾病监测中捕获-再捕获研究的对数线性建模框架的一些缺陷","authors":"Yuzi Zhang, Lin Ge, Lance A. Waller, Robert H. Lyles","doi":"10.1515/em-2023-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In epidemiological studies, the capture-recapture (CRC) method is a powerful tool that can be used to estimate the number of diseased cases or potentially disease prevalence based on data from overlapping surveillance systems. Estimators derived from log-linear models are widely applied by epidemiologists when analyzing CRC data. The popularity of the log-linear model framework is largely associated with its accessibility and the fact that interaction terms can allow for certain types of dependency among data streams. In this work, we shed new light on significant pitfalls associated with the log-linear model framework in the context of CRC using real data examples and simulation studies. First, we demonstrate that the log-linear model paradigm is highly exclusionary. That is, it can exclude, by design, many possible estimates that are potentially consistent with the observed data. Second, we clarify the ways in which regularly used model selection metrics (e.g., information criteria) are fundamentally deceiving in the effort to select a “best” model in this setting. By focusing attention on these important cautionary points and on the fundamental untestable dependency assumption made when fitting a log-linear model to CRC data, we hope to improve the quality of and transparency associated with subsequent surveillance-based CRC estimates of case counts.","PeriodicalId":37999,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Methods","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On some pitfalls of the log-linear modeling framework for capture-recapture studies in disease surveillance\",\"authors\":\"Yuzi Zhang, Lin Ge, Lance A. Waller, Robert H. Lyles\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/em-2023-0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In epidemiological studies, the capture-recapture (CRC) method is a powerful tool that can be used to estimate the number of diseased cases or potentially disease prevalence based on data from overlapping surveillance systems. Estimators derived from log-linear models are widely applied by epidemiologists when analyzing CRC data. The popularity of the log-linear model framework is largely associated with its accessibility and the fact that interaction terms can allow for certain types of dependency among data streams. In this work, we shed new light on significant pitfalls associated with the log-linear model framework in the context of CRC using real data examples and simulation studies. First, we demonstrate that the log-linear model paradigm is highly exclusionary. That is, it can exclude, by design, many possible estimates that are potentially consistent with the observed data. Second, we clarify the ways in which regularly used model selection metrics (e.g., information criteria) are fundamentally deceiving in the effort to select a “best” model in this setting. By focusing attention on these important cautionary points and on the fundamental untestable dependency assumption made when fitting a log-linear model to CRC data, we hope to improve the quality of and transparency associated with subsequent surveillance-based CRC estimates of case counts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2023-0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2023-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
On some pitfalls of the log-linear modeling framework for capture-recapture studies in disease surveillance
Abstract In epidemiological studies, the capture-recapture (CRC) method is a powerful tool that can be used to estimate the number of diseased cases or potentially disease prevalence based on data from overlapping surveillance systems. Estimators derived from log-linear models are widely applied by epidemiologists when analyzing CRC data. The popularity of the log-linear model framework is largely associated with its accessibility and the fact that interaction terms can allow for certain types of dependency among data streams. In this work, we shed new light on significant pitfalls associated with the log-linear model framework in the context of CRC using real data examples and simulation studies. First, we demonstrate that the log-linear model paradigm is highly exclusionary. That is, it can exclude, by design, many possible estimates that are potentially consistent with the observed data. Second, we clarify the ways in which regularly used model selection metrics (e.g., information criteria) are fundamentally deceiving in the effort to select a “best” model in this setting. By focusing attention on these important cautionary points and on the fundamental untestable dependency assumption made when fitting a log-linear model to CRC data, we hope to improve the quality of and transparency associated with subsequent surveillance-based CRC estimates of case counts.
期刊介绍:
Epidemiologic Methods (EM) seeks contributions comparable to those of the leading epidemiologic journals, but also invites papers that may be more technical or of greater length than what has traditionally been allowed by journals in epidemiology. Applications and examples with real data to illustrate methodology are strongly encouraged but not required. Topics. genetic epidemiology, infectious disease, pharmaco-epidemiology, ecologic studies, environmental exposures, screening, surveillance, social networks, comparative effectiveness, statistical modeling, causal inference, measurement error, study design, meta-analysis