IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2015i11p14723-14740d59042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Discriminant Function Approach to Adjust for Processing and Measurement Error When a Biomarker is Assayed in Pooled Samples

Author

Listed:
  • Robert H. Lyles

    (Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, The Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd. N.E., Mailstop 1518-002-3AA, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA)

  • Dane Van Domelen

    (Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, The Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd. N.E., Mailstop 1518-002-3AA, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA)

  • Emily M. Mitchell

    (Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA)

  • Enrique F. Schisterman

    (Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA)

Abstract

Pooling biological specimens prior to performing expensive laboratory assays has been shown to be a cost effective approach for estimating parameters of interest. In addition to requiring specialized statistical techniques, however, the pooling of samples can introduce assay errors due to processing, possibly in addition to measurement error that may be present when the assay is applied to individual samples. Failure to account for these sources of error can result in biased parameter estimates and ultimately faulty inference. Prior research addressing biomarker mean and variance estimation advocates hybrid designs consisting of individual as well as pooled samples to account for measurement and processing (or pooling) error. We consider adapting this approach to the problem of estimating a covariate-adjusted odds ratio (OR) relating a binary outcome to a continuous exposure or biomarker level assessed in pools. In particular, we explore the applicability of a discriminant function-based analysis that assumes normal residual, processing, and measurement errors. A potential advantage of this method is that maximum likelihood estimation of the desired adjusted log OR is straightforward and computationally convenient. Moreover, in the absence of measurement and processing error, the method yields an efficient unbiased estimator for the parameter of interest assuming normal residual errors. We illustrate the approach using real data from an ancillary study of the Collaborative Perinatal Project, and we use simulations to demonstrate the ability of the proposed estimators to alleviate bias due to measurement and processing error.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert H. Lyles & Dane Van Domelen & Emily M. Mitchell & Enrique F. Schisterman, 2015. "A Discriminant Function Approach to Adjust for Processing and Measurement Error When a Biomarker is Assayed in Pooled Samples," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:11:p:14723-14740:d:59042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14723/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/11/14723/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhiwei Zhang & Paul S. Albert, 2011. "Binary Regression Analysis with Pooled Exposure Measurements: A Regression Calibration Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 636-645, June.
    2. Lyles, Robert H. & Guo, Ying & Hill, Andrew N., 2009. "A Fresh Look at the Discriminant Function Approach for Estimating Crude or Adjusted Odds Ratios," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 63(4), pages 320-327.
    3. Clarice R. Weinberg & David M. Umbach, 1999. "Using Pooled Exposure Assessment to Improve Efficiency in Case-Control Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 718-726, September.
    4. Emily M. Mitchell & Robert H. Lyles & Amita K. Manatunga & Michelle Danaher & Neil J. Perkins & Enrique F. Schisterman, 2014. "Regression for skewed biomarker outcomes subject to pooling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 202-211, March.
    5. Chang-Xing Ma & Albert Vexler & Enrique F. Schisterman & Lili Tian, 2011. "Cost-efficient designs based on linearly associated biomarkers," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(12), pages 2739-2750, January.
    6. Ron Brookmeyer, 1999. "Analysis of Multistage Pooling Studies of Biological Specimens for Estimating Disease Incidence and Prevalence," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 608-612, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily M. Mitchell & Robert H. Lyles & Amita K. Manatunga & Michelle Danaher & Neil J. Perkins & Enrique F. Schisterman, 2014. "Regression for skewed biomarker outcomes subject to pooling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 202-211, March.
    2. Karyn Heavner & Craig Newschaffer & Irva Hertz-Picciotto & Deborah Bennett & Igor Burstyn, 2015. "Pooling Bio-Specimens in the Presence of Measurement Error and Non-Linearity in Dose-Response: Simulation Study in the Context of a Birth Cohort Investigating Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorder," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Yaakov Malinovsky & Paul S. Albert & Enrique F. Schisterman, 2012. "Pooling Designs for Outcomes under a Gaussian Random Effects Model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 45-52, March.
    4. Wang, Dewei & McMahan, Christopher S. & Tebbs, Joshua M. & Bilder, Christopher R., 2018. "Group testing case identification with biomarker information," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 156-166.
    5. Francheska M. Merced-Nieves & Kelsey L. C. Dzwilewski & Andrea Aguiar & Salma Musaad & Susan A. Korrick & Susan L. Schantz, 2021. "Associations of Prenatal Exposure to Phthalates with Measures of Cognition in 4.5-Month-Old Infants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    6. S. Vansteelandt & E. Goetghebeur & T. Verstraeten, 2000. "Regression Models for Disease Prevalence with Diagnostic Tests on Pools of Serum Samples," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1126-1133, December.
    7. Graham Hepworth & Brad J. Biggerstaff, 2017. "Bias Correction in Estimating Proportions by Pooled Testing," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 22(4), pages 602-614, December.
    8. Zhiwei Zhang & Paul S. Albert, 2011. "Binary Regression Analysis with Pooled Exposure Measurements: A Regression Calibration Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 636-645, June.
    9. Peng Chen & Joshua M. Tebbs & Christopher R. Bilder, 2009. "Group Testing Regression Models with Fixed and Random Effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 1270-1278, December.
    10. Dewei Wang & Xichen Mou & Yan Liu, 2022. "Varying‐coefficient regression analysis for pooled biomonitoring," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1328-1341, December.
    11. Igor Burstyn & Jonathan W. Martin & Sanjay Beesoon & Fiona Bamforth & Qiaozhi Li & Yutaka Yasui & Nicola M. Cherry, 2013. "Maternal Exposure to Bisphenol-A and Fetal Growth Restriction: A Case-Referent Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Albert Vexler & Aiyi Liu & Enrique Schisterman, 2010. "Nonparametric deconvolution of density estimation based on observed sums," Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 23-39.
    13. Xianzheng Huang & Joshua M. Tebbs, 2009. "On Latent-Variable Model Misspecification in Structural Measurement Error Models for Binary Response," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 710-718, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:11:p:14723-14740:d:59042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.