Search

Background Measurement error in exposures and confounders can bias exposure–outcome associations but is rarely considered. We aimed to assess random measurement error of all continuous variables in UK Biobank and explore approaches to mitigate its impact on exposure–outcome associations. Methods Random measurement error was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all continuous variables with repeat measures. Regression calibration was used to correct for random error in exposures and confounders, using the associations of red blood cell distribution width (RDW), C-reactive protein (CRP) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] with mortality as illustrative examples. Results The 2858 continuous variables with repeat measures varied in sample size from 109 to 49 121. They fell into three groups: (i) baseline visit [529 variables; median (interquartile range) ICC = 0.64 (0.57, 0.83)]; (ii) online diet by 24-h recall [22 variables; 0.35 (0.30, 0.40)] and (iii) imaging measures [2307 variables; 0.85 (0.73, 0.94)]. Highest ICCs were for anthropometric and medical history measures, and lowest for dietary and heart magnetic resonance imaging. The ICCs (95% confidence interval) for RDW, CRP and 25(OH)D were 0.52 (0.51, 0.53), 0.29 (0.27, 0.30) and 0.55 (0.54, 0.56), respectively. Higher RDW and levels of CRP were associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality, and higher concentration of 25(OH)D with lower risk. After correction for random measurement error in the main exposure, the associations all strengthened. Confounder correction did not influence estimates. Conclusions Random measurement error varies widely and is often non-negligible. For UK Biobank we provide relevant statistics and adaptable code to help other researchers explore and correct for this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, using data collected by a UK electricity-generating company., Methods: Using a test-negative design case-control study, we estimated the OR of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type., Results: From an original 80 077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70 646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2968).Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area, it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared with routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29 to 115.24), followed by close contact (16.73; 13.80 to 20.29) and broader-defined work contact 2.66 (1.99 to 3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model., Conclusions: In general, infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)