ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Causal Selection of Covariates in Regression Calibration for Mismeasured Continuous Exposure.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Covariate Selection for the Regression Calibration Method for Exposure Measurement Error Bias Correction.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Improving transportability of regression calibration under the main/external validation study design.Biometrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regression calibration as developed by Rosner, Spiegelman, and Willett is used to adjust the bias in effect estimates due to measurement error in continuous exposures. The method involves two models: a measurement error model relating the mismeasured exposure to the true (or gold-standard) exposure and an outcome model relating the mismeasured exposure to the outcome. However, no comprehensive guidance exists for determining which covariates should be included in each model. In this article, we investigate the selection of the minimal and most efficient covariate adjustment sets under a causal inference framework. We show that to address the measurement error, researchers must adjust for, in both measurement error and outcome models, any common causes (1) of true exposure and the outcome and (2) of measurement error and the outcome. We also show that adjusting for so-called prognostic variables that are independent of true exposure and measurement error in the outcome model, may increase efficiency, while adjusting for any covariates that are associated only with true exposure generally results in efficiency loss in realistic settings. We apply the proposed covariate selection approach to the Health Professional Follow-up Study dataset to study the effect of fiber intake on cardiovascular disease. Finally, we extend the originally proposed estimators to a nonparametric setting where effect modification by covariates is allowed.
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.