Repeated Measures Regression in Laboratory, Clinical and Environmental Research: Common Misconceptions in the Matter of Different Within- and between-Subject Slopes.

cross-sectional regression generalized estimating equations mixed models repeated measures within-/between-subject associations working correlation structure

Journal

International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 02 2019
Historique:
received: 21 10 2018
revised: 04 02 2019
accepted: 06 02 2019
entrez: 14 2 2019
pubmed: 14 2 2019
medline: 18 6 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

When using repeated measures linear regression models to make causal inference in laboratory, clinical and environmental research, it is typically assumed that the within-subject association of differences (or changes) in predictor variable values across replicates is the same as the between-subject association of differences in those predictor variable values. However, this is often false. For example, with body weight as the predictor variable and blood cholesterol (which increases with higher body fat) as the outcome: (i) a 10-lb weight increase in the same adult affects more greatly an increase in cholesterol in that adult than does (ii) one adult weighing 10 lbs more than a second indicate higher cholesterol in the heavier adult. A 10-lb weight gain in the first adult more likely reflects a build-up of body fat in that person, while a second person being 10 lbs heavier than the first could be influenced by other factors, such as the second person being taller. Hence, to make causal inferences, different within- and between-subject slopes should be separately modeled. A related misconception commonly made using generalized estimation equations (GEE) and mixed models on repeated measures (i.e., for fitting cross-sectional regression) is that the working correlation structure only influences variance of the parameter estimates. However, only independence working correlation guarantees that the modeled parameters have interpretability. We illustrate this with an example where changing working correlation from independence to equicorrelation qualitatively biases parameters of GEE models and show that this happens because within- and between-subject slopes for the outcomes regressed on the predictor variables differ

Identifiants

pubmed: 30754731
pii: ijerph16030504
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030504
pmc: PMC6388388
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : U01 AI035004
Pays : United States

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Références

Stat Med. 2003 Aug 30;22(16):2591-602
pubmed: 12898546
Stat Med. 1995 Apr 30;14(8):789-98
pubmed: 7644859
Stat Med. 2010 Feb 20;29(4):504-20
pubmed: 20013937
Ann Occup Hyg. 1998 Feb;42(2):115-9
pubmed: 9559571
Scand J Work Environ Health. 1995 Dec;21(6):504-12
pubmed: 8824757
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011 Mar-Apr;21(2):212-21
pubmed: 20179749
Stat Med. 2000 Jul 15;19(13):1793-819
pubmed: 10861779
N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):447-58
pubmed: 17267905
Stat Med. 2009 Aug 15;28(18):2338-55
pubmed: 19472307
Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Sep;110(9):961-7
pubmed: 12204833
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;25(5):482-9
pubmed: 25605445
Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16;130(6):461-70
pubmed: 10075613
Biometrics. 1998 Jun;54(2):638-45
pubmed: 9629647
Epidemiology. 1998 Mar;9(2):117-25
pubmed: 9504278
Natl Health Stat Report. 2010 Mar 1;(21):1-7
pubmed: 20540274
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(2):202-14
pubmed: 22838186
Stat Med. 2009 Jan 30;28(2):221-39
pubmed: 19012297
Respir Med. 2010 Dec;104(12):1903-11
pubmed: 20801627
J Dent Res. 2000 Oct;79(10):1778-81
pubmed: 11077994
Biometrics. 1996 Jun;52(2):500-11
pubmed: 10766502
Clin Chem. 1979 Oct;25(10):1799-805
pubmed: 573186
Biostatistics. 2005 Oct;6(4):633-52
pubmed: 15917376

Auteurs

Donald R Hoover (DR)

Department of Statistics and Biostatistics and Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. drhoover@stat.rutgers.edu.

Qiuhu Shi (Q)

School of Health Sciences and Practice, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY 10595, USA. qshi@data2solutions.com.

Igor Burstyn (I)

Environmental and Occupational Health Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. igor.burstyn@drexel.edu.

Kathryn Anastos (K)

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, USA. kanastos@montefiore.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH