ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Causal Covariate Selection for the Regression Calibration Method for Exposure Measurement Error Bias Correction.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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.
- Causal Covariate Selection for the Regression Calibration Method for Exposure Measurement Error Bias Correction.Statistics in medicine · 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
In this paper, we investigate the selection of minimal and efficient covariate adjustment sets for the imputation-based regression calibration method, which corrects for bias due to continuous exposure measurement error. We use directed acyclic graphs to illustrate how subject-matter knowledge aids in selecting these sets. For unbiased measurement error correction, researchers must collect, in both main and validation studies, (I) common causes of both the true exposure and the outcome, and (II) common causes of both measurement error and the outcome. For regression calibration under linear models, at minimum, covariate set (I) must be adjusted for in both the measurement error model (MEM) and the outcome model, while set (II) should be adjusted for in at least the MEM. Adjusting for non-risk factors that are correlates of true exposure or measurement error within the MEM alone improves efficiency. We apply this covariate selection approach to the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, assessing fiber intake's effect on cardiovascular disease. We also highlight potential pitfalls in data-driven MEM building that ignores structural assumptions. Additionally, we extend existing estimators to allow for effect modification. Finally, we caution against using regression calibration to estimate the effect of true nutritional intake through calibrating biomarkers.
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.