To weight or not to weight? The effect of selection bias in 3 large electronic health record-linked biobanks and recommendations for practice

Author:

Salvatore Maxwell12ORCID,Kundu Ritoban23,Shi Xu3,Friese Christopher R456,Lee Seunggeun37,Fritsche Lars G234,Mondul Alison M14,Hanauer David8,Pearce Celeste Leigh14,Mukherjee Bhramar123ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

2. Center for Precision Health Data Science, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

4. Rogel Cancer Center, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

5. Center for Improving Patient and Population Health, School of Nursing, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

6. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, United States

7. Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University , Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

8. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2054, United States

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To develop recommendations regarding the use of weights to reduce selection bias for commonly performed analyses using electronic health record (EHR)-linked biobank data. Materials and methods We mapped diagnosis (ICD code) data to standardized phecodes from 3 EHR-linked biobanks with varying recruitment strategies: All of Us (AOU; n = 244 071), Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI; n = 81 243), and UK Biobank (UKB; n = 401 167). Using 2019 National Health Interview Survey data, we constructed selection weights for AOU and MGI to represent the US adult population more. We used weights previously developed for UKB to represent the UKB-eligible population. We conducted 4 common analyses comparing unweighted and weighted results. Results For AOU and MGI, estimated phecode prevalences decreased after weighting (weighted-unweighted median phecode prevalence ratio [MPR]: 0.82 and 0.61), while UKB estimates increased (MPR: 1.06). Weighting minimally impacted latent phenome dimensionality estimation. Comparing weighted versus unweighted phenome-wide association study for colorectal cancer, the strongest associations remained unaltered, with considerable overlap in significant hits. Weighting affected the estimated log-odds ratio for sex and colorectal cancer to align more closely with national registry-based estimates. Discussion Weighting had a limited impact on dimensionality estimation and large-scale hypothesis testing but impacted prevalence and association estimation. When interested in estimating effect size, specific signals from untargeted association analyses should be followed up by weighted analysis. Conclusion EHR-linked biobanks should report recruitment and selection mechanisms and provide selection weights with defined target populations. Researchers should consider their intended estimands, specify source and target populations, and weight EHR-linked biobank analyses accordingly.

Funder

National Cancer Institute

Training, Education, and Career Development Graduate Student Scholarship

University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3