Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38253592›Full record

ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024

Compare the marginal effects for environmental exposure and biomonitoring data with repeated measurements and values below the limit of detection.

I-Chen Chen, Stephen J Bertke, Cheryl Fairfield Estill

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

I-Chen ChenDivision of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, USA. okv0@cdc.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-6764-8395
Stephen J BertkeDivision of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Cheryl Fairfield EstillDivision of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnvironmental exposure and biomonitoring data with repeated measurements from environmental and occupational studies are commonly right-skewed and in the presence of limits of detection (LOD). However, existing model has not been discussed for small-sample properties and highly skewed data with non-detects and repeated measurements.

objectiveMarginal modeling provides an alternative to analyzing longitudinal and cluster data, in which the parameter interpretations are with respect to marginal or population-averaged means.

methodsWe outlined the theories of three marginal models, i.e., generalized estimating equations (GEE), quadratic inference functions (QIF), and generalized method of moments (GMM). With these approaches, we proposed to incorporate the fill-in methods, including single and multiple value imputation techniques, such that any measurements less than the limit of detection are assigned values.

resultsWe demonstrated that the GEE method works well in terms of estimating the regression parameters in small sample sizes, while the QIF and GMM outperform in large-sample settings, as parameter estimates are consistent and have relatively smaller mean squared error. No specific fill-in method can be deemed superior as each has its own merits. IMPACT: Marginal modeling is firstly employed to analyze repeated measures data with non-detects, in which only the mean structure needs to be correctly provided to obtain consistent parameter estimates. After replacing non-detects through substitution methods and utilizing small-sample bias corrections, in a simulation study we found that the estimating approaches used in the marginal models have corresponding advantages under a wide range of sample sizes. We also applied the models to longitudinal and cluster working examples.

Indexed as

Biological MonitoringEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHumansLimit of DetectionModels, StatisticalEnvironmental exposureLeft censoringLimit of detectionMarginal analysisRepeated measuresRight skewness

Identifiers

PMID38253592
PMCPMC11260897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.