Abstract:BackgroundAccurate exposure estimation in environmental epidemiological studies is crucial for health risk assessment. Failure to account for uncertainties in exposure estimation could lead to biased results in exposure-response analyses. Assessment of the effects of uncertainties in exposure estimation on risk estimates received a lot of attention in radiation epidemiology and in several studies of diet and air pollution. The objective of this narrative review is to examine the commonly used statistical approaches to account for exposure estimation errors in risk analyses and to suggest how each could be applied in environmental epidemiological studies.Main textWe review two main error types in estimating exposures in epidemiological studies: shared and unshared errors and their subtypes. We describe the four main statistical approaches to adjust for exposure estimation uncertainties (regression calibration, simulation-extrapolation, Monte Carlo maximum likelihood and Bayesian model averaging) along with examples to give readers better understanding of their advantages and limitations. We also explain the advantages of using a 2-dimensional Monte-Carlo (2DMC) simulation method to quantify the effect of uncertainties in exposure estimates using full-likelihood methods. For exposures that are estimated independently between subjects and are more likely to introduce unshared errors, regression calibration and SIMEX methods are able to adequately account for exposure uncertainties in risk analyses. When an uncalibrated measuring device is used or estimation parameters with uncertain mean values are applied to a group of people, shared errors could potentially be large. In this case, Monte Carlo maximum likelihood and Bayesian model averaging methods based on estimates of exposure from the 2DMC simulations would work well. The majority of reviewed studies show relatively moderate changes (within 100%) in risk estimates after accounting for uncertainties in exposure estimates, except for the two studies which doubled/tripled naïve estimates.ConclusionsIn this paper, we demonstrate various statistical methods to account for uncertain exposure estimates in risk analyses. The differences in the results of various adjustment methods could be due to various error structures in datasets and whether or not a proper statistical method was applied. Epidemiological studies of environmental exposures should include exposure-response analyses accounting for uncertainties in exposure estimates.

Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: Review of current practice and recommendations

Methods to account for uncertainties in exposure assessment in studies of environmental exposures

Systematic review of statistical approaches to quantify, or correct for, measurement error in a continuous exposure in nutritional epidemiology

Measurement Error and Environmental Epidemiology: a Policy Perspective

An Approximate Quasi-Likelihood Approach for Error-Prone Failure Time Outcomes and Exposures

Measurement error in two-stage analyses, with application to air pollution epidemiology

Learning Models from Data with Measurement Error: Tackling Underreporting

Exposure variables in veterinary epidemiology: are they telling us what we think they are?

Measurement Error in Nutritional Epidemiology: A Survey

The impact of measurement error in modeled ambient particles exposures on health effect estimates in multilevel analysis: A simulation study

The Impact of Incorrectly-Measured Variables when Mixed with Precisely Measured Variables on the Study of Validity in Epidemiological Research

Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)

Common mistakes in biostatistics

Misstatements, misperceptions, and mistakes in controlling for covariates in observational research

Common Statistical Errors in Scientific Investigations: A Simple Guide to Avoid Unfounded Decisions

Spatial Measurement Errors in the Field of Spatial Epidemiology

Estimating a Causal Exposure Response Function with a Continuous Error-Prone Exposure: A Study of Fine Particulate Matter and All-Cause Mortality

Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence

Avoiding overadjustment bias in social epidemiology through appropriate covariate selection: a primer

Exploring regression dilution bias using repeat measurements of 2858 variables in up to 49 000 UK Biobank participants