Search

In this paper, we advocate and expand upon a previously described monitoring strategy for efficient and robust estimation of disease prevalence and case numbers within closed and enumerated populations such as schools, workplaces, or retirement communities. The proposed design relies largely on voluntary testing, which is notoriously biased (e.g. in the case of coronavirus disease 2019) due to nonrepresentative sampling. The approach yields unbiased and comparatively precise estimates with no assumptions about factors underlying selection of individuals for voluntary testing, building on the strength of what can be a small random sampling component. This component enables the use of a recently proposed "anchor stream" estimator, a well-calibrated alternative to classical capture-recapture (CRC) estimators based on 2 data streams. We show that this estimator is equivalent to a direct standardization based on "capture," that is, selection (or not) by the voluntary testing program, made possible by means of a key parameter identified by design. This equivalency simultaneously allows for novel 2-stream CRC-like estimation of general mean values (e.g. means of continuous variables like antibody levels or biomarkers). For inference, we propose adaptations of Bayesian credible intervals when estimating case counts and bootstrapping when estimating means of continuous variables. We use simulations to demonstrate significant precision benefits relative to random sampling alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In diagnostic medicine, the true disease status of a patient is often represented on an ordinal scale—for example, cancer stage (0, I, II, III, or IV) or coronary artery disease severity measured using the Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) scale (none, minimal, mild, moderate, severe, or occluded). With advances in quantitation of diagnostic images and in artificial intelligence (AI), both supervised and unsupervised algorithms are being developed to help physicians correctly grade disease. Most of the diagnostic accuracy literature deals with binary disease status (disease present or absent); however, tests diagnosing ordinal-scaled diseases should not be reduced to a binary status just to simplify diagnostic accuracy testing. In this paper, we propose different characterizations of ordinal-scale accuracy for different clinical use scenarios, along with methods for comparing tests. In the simplest scenario, just the proportion of correct grades is considered; other scenarios address the magnitude and direction of misgrading; and at the other extreme, a weighted accuracy measure with weights based on the relative costs of different types of misgrading is presented. The various scenarios are illustrated using a coronary artery disease example where the accuracy of AI algorithms in providing patients with the correct CAD-RADS grade is assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ensuring that patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have access to optimal medication therapies is a critical challenge in substance use epidemiology. Rudolph et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2023;XXX(X):XXXX-XXXX) demonstrated that sophisticated data-adaptive statistical techniques can be used to learn optimal, individualized treatment rules that can aid providers in choosing a medication treatment modality for a particular patient with OUD. This important work also highlights the effects of the mathematization of epidemiologic research. Here, we define mathematization and demonstrate how it operates in the context of effectiveness research on medications for OUD using the paper by Rudolph et al. as a springboard. In particular, we address the normative dimension of mathematization and how it tends to resolve a fundamental tension in epidemiologic practice between technical sophistication and public health considerations in favor of more technical solutions. The process of mathematization is a fundamental part of epidemiology; we argue not for eliminating it but for balancing mathematization and technical demands equally with practical and community-centric public health needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measurement error is pervasive in epidemiologic research. Epidemiologists often assume that mismeasurement of study variables is nondifferential with respect to other analytical variables and then rely on the heuristic that "nondifferential misclassification will bias estimates towards the null." However, there are many exceptions to the heuristic for which bias towards the null cannot be assumed. In this paper, we compile and characterize 7 exceptions to this rule and encourage analysts to take a more critical and nuanced approach to evaluating and discussing bias from nondifferential mismeasurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data collected from a validation substudy permit calculation of a bias-adjusted estimate of effect that is expected to equal the estimate that would have been observed had the gold standard measurement been available for the entire study population. In this paper, we develop and apply a framework for adaptive validation to determine when sufficient validation data have been collected to yield a bias-adjusted effect estimate with a prespecified level of precision. Prespecified levels of precision are decided a priori by the investigator, based on the precision of the conventional estimate and allowing for wider confidence intervals that would still be substantively meaningful. We further present an applied example of the use of this method to address exposure misclassification in a study of transmasculine/transfeminine youth and self-harm. Our method provides a novel approach to effective and efficient estimation of classification parameters as validation data accrue, with emphasis on the precision of the bias-adjusted estimate. This method can be applied within the context of any parent epidemiologic study design in which validation data will be collected and modified to meet alternative criteria given specific study or validation study objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simulation methods are a powerful set of tools that can allow researchers to better characterize phenomena from the real world. As such, the ability to simulate data represents a critical set of skills that epidemiologists should use to better understand epidemiologic concepts and ensure that they have the tools to continue to self-teach even when their formal instruction ends. Simulation methods are not always taught in epidemiology methods courses, whereas causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) often are. Therefore, this paper details an approach to building simulations from DAGs and provides examples and code for learning to perform simulations. We recommend using very simple DAGs to learn the procedures and code necessary to set up a simulation that builds on key concepts frequently of interest to epidemiologists (e.g. mediation, confounding bias, M bias). We believe that following this approach will allow epidemiologists to gain confidence with a critical skill set that may in turn have a positive impact on how they conduct future epidemiologic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we consider methods for generating draws of a binary random variable whose expectation conditional on covariates follows a logistic regression model with known covariate coefficients. We examine approximations for finding a "balancing intercept," that is, a value for the intercept of the logistic model that leads to a desired marginal expectation for the binary random variable. We show that a recently proposed analytical approximation can produce inaccurate results, especially when targeting more extreme marginal expectations or when the linear predictor of the regression model has high variance. We then formulate the balancing intercept as a solution to an integral equation, implement a numerical approximation for solving the equation based on Monte Carlo methods, and show that the approximation works well in practice. Our approach to the basic problem of the balancing intercept provides an example of a broadly applicable strategy for formulating and solving problems that arise in the design of simulation studies used to evaluate or teach epidemiologic methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing number of recent studies have suggested that doubly robust estimators with cross-fitting should be used when estimating causal effects with machine learning methods. However, not all existing programs that implement doubly robust estimators support machine learning methods and cross-fitting, or provide estimates on multiplicative scales. To address these needs, we developed AIPW , a software package implementing augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) estimation of average causal effects in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Key features of the AIPW package include cross-fitting and flexible covariate adjustment for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this paper, we use a simulated RCT to illustrate implementation of the AIPW estimator. We also perform a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the AIPW package compared with other doubly robust implementations, including CausalGAM , npcausal , tmle , and tmle3. Our simulation showed that the AIPW package yields performance comparable to that of other programs. Furthermore, we also found that cross-fitting substantively decreases the bias and improves the confidence interval coverage for doubly robust estimators fitted with machine learning algorithms. Our findings suggest that the AIPW package can be a useful tool for estimating average causal effects with machine learning methods in RCTs and observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]