On the Use of Covariate Supersets for Identification Conditions

The union of distinct covariate sets, or the superset, is often used in proofs for the identification or the statistical consistency of an estimator when multiple sources of bias are present. However, the use of a superset can obscure important nuances. Here, we provide two illustrative examples: one in the context of missing data on outcomes, and one in which the average causal effect is transported to another target population. As these examples demonstrate, the use of supersets may indicate a parameter is not identifiable when the parameter is indeed identified. Furthermore, a series of exchangeability conditions may lead to successively weaker conditions. Future work on approaches to address multiple biases can avoid these pitfalls by considering the more general case of nonoverlapping covariate sets

When Does Differential Outcome Misclassification Matter for Estimating Prevalence?

Background: When accounting for misclassification, investigators make assumptions about whether misclassification is "differential" or "nondifferential." Most guidance on differential misclassification considers settings where outcome misclassification varies across levels of exposure, or vice versa. Here, we examine when covariate-differential misclassification must be considered when estimating overall outcome prevalence. Methods: We generated datasets with outcome misclassification under five data generating mechanisms. In each, we estimated prevalence using estimators that (a) ignored misclassification, (b) assumed misclassification was nondifferential, and (c) allowed misclassification to vary across levels of a covariate. We compared bias and precision in estimated prevalence in the study sample and an external target population using different sources of validation data to account for misclassification. We illustrated use of each approach to estimate HIV prevalence using self-reported HIV status among people in East Africa cross-border areas. Results: The estimator that allowed misclassification to vary across levels of the covariate produced results with little bias for both populations in all scenarios but had higher variability when the validation study contained sparse strata. Estimators that assumed nondifferential misclassification produced results with little bias when the covariate distribution in the validation data matched the covariate distribution in the target population; otherwise estimates assuming nondifferential misclassification were biased. Conclusions: If validation data are a simple random sample from the target population, assuming nondifferential outcome misclassification will yield prevalence estimates with little bias regardless of whether misclassification varies across covariates. Otherwise, obtaining valid prevalence estimates requires incorporating covariates into the estimators used to account for misclassification

Illustration of 2 Fusion Designs and Estimators

"Fusion" study designs combine data from different sources to answer questions that could not be answered (as well) by subsets of the data. Studies that augment main study data with validation data, as in measurement-error correction studies or generalizability studies, are examples of fusion designs. Fusion estimators, here solutions to stacked estimating functions, produce consistent answers to identified research questions using data from fusion designs. In this paper, we describe a pair of examples of fusion designs and estimators, one where we generalize a proportion to a target population and one where we correct measurement error in a proportion. For each case, we present an example motivated by human immunodeficiency virus research and summarize results from simulation studies. Simulations demonstrate that the fusion estimators provide approximately unbiased results with appropriate 95% confidence interval coverage. Fusion estimators can be used to appropriately combine data in answering important questions that benefit from multiple sources of information

Missing Outcome Data in Epidemiologic Studies

Missing data are pandemic and a central problem for epidemiology. Missing data reduce precision and can cause notable bias. There remain too few simple published examples detailing types of missing data and illustrating their possible impact on results. Here we take an example randomized trial that was not subject to missing data and induce missing data to illustrate 4 scenarios in which outcomes are 1) missing completely at random, 2) missing at random with positivity, 3) missing at random without positivity, and 4) missing not at random. We demonstrate that accounting for missing data is generally a better strategy than ignoring missing data, which unfortunately remains a standard approach in epidemiology

Product attributes affecting consumer preference for residential deck materials

In many countries, restrictions on the use of traditional preservative treatments have resulted in efforts to develop wood products for outdoor use that are durable, environmentally friendly, and appealing to consumers. In the present study, consumers’ preferences for wooden deck materials were investigated using sensory analysis. The analysis included an analytical sensory profiling of five deck materials, conducted by a trained sensory panel, as well as a hedonic preference study conducted on Norwegian customers. Eighteen visual and tactile attributes were identified, and statistical analysis indicated that these attributes were sufficient to discriminate between the different deck materials. The results imply that consumers prefer deck materials with a homogeneous visual appearance and moderate color intensity. The study demonstrated a successful application of sensory research on wood products and implies that sensory analysis is an appropriate tool to study relationships between hedonic judgments and product characteristics. The study was carried out on wooden deck materials, but the results are probably also relevant for other wood products