ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
Estimators for longitudinal latent exposure models: examining measurement model assumptions.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Latent variable (LV) models are increasingly being used in environmental epidemiology as a way to summarize multiple environmental exposures and thus minimize statistical concerns that arise in multiple regression. LV models may be especially useful when multivariate exposures are collected repeatedly over time. LV models can accommodate a variety of assumptions but, at the same time, present the user with many choices for model specification particularly in the case of exposure data collected repeatedly over time. For instance, the user could assume conditional independence of observed exposure biomarkers given the latent exposure and, in the case of longitudinal latent exposure variables, time invariance of the measurement model. Choosing which assumptions to relax is not always straightforward. We were motivated by a study of prenatal lead exposure and mental development, where assumptions of the measurement model for the time-changing longitudinal exposure have appreciable impact on (maximum-likelihood) inferences about the health effects of lead exposure. Although we were not particularly interested in characterizing the change of the LV itself, imposing a longitudinal LV structure on the repeated multivariate exposure measures could result in high efficiency gains for the exposure-disease association. We examine the biases of maximum likelihood estimators when assumptions about the measurement model for the longitudinal latent exposure variable are violated. We adapt existing instrumental variable estimators to the case of longitudinal exposures and propose them as an alternative to estimate the health effects of a time-changing latent predictor. We show that instrumental variable estimators remain unbiased for a wide range of data generating models and have advantages in terms of mean squared error. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.