Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27035688›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2016

Within-subject Pooling of Biological Samples to Reduce Exposure Misclassification in Biomarker-based Studies.

Flavie Perrier, Lise Giorgis-Allemand, Rémy Slama, Claire Philippat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

128 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Relevance and challenges of exposome studies for environmental health research.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Flavie PerrierFrom the aInserm, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, U1209 (IAB), Grenoble, France; bUniv. Grenoble-Alpes, Team of Environmental Epidemiology applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, IAB, Grenoble, France; cDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA; and dMIND (Medical Investigations of Neurodevelopmental Disorders) Institute, University of California, Davis, CA.
Lise Giorgis-Allemand
Rémy Slama
Claire Philippat

Funding

European Research Council 311765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor chemicals with high within-subject temporal variability, assessing exposure biomarkers in a spot biospecimen poorly estimates average levels over long periods. The objective is to characterize the ability of within-subject pooling of biospecimens to reduce bias due to exposure misclassification when within-subject variability in biomarker concentrations is high.

methodsWe considered chemicals with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.6 and 0.2. In a simulation study, we hypothesized that the chemical urinary concentrations averaged over a given time period were associated with a health outcome and estimated the bias of studies assessing exposure that collected 1 to 50 random biospecimens per subject. We assumed a classical type error. We studied associations using a within-subject pooling approach and two measurement error models (simulation extrapolation and regression calibration), the latter requiring the assay of more than one biospecimen per subject.

resultsFor both continuous and binary outcomes, using one sample led to attenuation bias of 40% and 80% for compounds with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.6 and 0.2, respectively. For a compound with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.6, the numbers of biospecimens required to limit bias to less than 10% were 6, 2, and 2 biospecimens with the pooling, simulation extrapolation, and regression calibration methods (these values were, respectively, 35, 8, and 2 for a compound with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.2). Compared with pooling, these methods did not improve power.

conclusionWithin-subject pooling limits attenuation bias without increasing assay costs. Simulation extrapolation and regression calibration further limit bias, compared with the pooling approach, but increase assay costs.

Indexed as

BiasComputer SimulationSpecimen HandlingBiomarkersCalibrationHumansRegression AnalysisUrineBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID27035688
PMCPMC4820663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.