Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Candidate Gene Testing in Clinical Cohort Studies with Multiplexed Genotyping and Mass Spectrometry
Published on: June 21, 2018
Biased Exposure-Health Effect Estimates from Selection in Cohort Studies: Are Environmental Studies at Particular
Marc G Weisskopf1, David Sparrow, Howard Hu
1Department of Epidemiology and Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Background:
The process of creating a cohort or cohort substudy may induce misleading exposure-health effect associations through collider stratification bias (i.e., selection bias) or bias due to conditioning on an intermediate. Studies of environmental risk factors may be at particular risk.
Objectives:
We aimed to demonstrate how such biases of the exposure-health effect association arise and how one may mitigate them.
Methods:
We used directed acyclic graphs and the example of bone lead and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and ischemic heart disease) among 835 white men in the Normative Aging Study (NAS) to illustrate potential bias related to recruitment into the NAS and the bone lead substudy. We then applied methods (adjustment, restriction, and inverse probability of attrition weighting) to mitigate these biases in analyses using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results:
Analyses adjusted for age at bone lead measurement, smoking, and education among all men found HRs (95% CI) for the highest versus lowest tertile of patella lead of 1.34 (0.90, 2.00), 1.46 (0.86, 2.48), and 2.01 (0.86, 4.68) for all-cause, cardiovascular, and ischemic heart disease mortality, respectively. After applying methods to mitigate the biases, the HR (95% CI) among the 637 men analyzed were 1.86 (1.12, 3.09), 2.47 (1.23, 4.96), and 5.20 (1.61, 16.8), respectively.
Conclusions:
Careful attention to the underlying structure of the observed data is critical to identifying potential biases and methods to mitigate them. Understanding factors that influence initial study participation and study loss to follow-up is critical. Recruitment of population-based samples and enrolling participants at a younger age, before the potential onset of exposure-related health effects, can help reduce these potential pitfalls.
Citation:
Weisskopf MG, Sparrow D, Hu H, Power MC. 2015. Biased exposure-health effect estimates from selection in cohort studies: are environmental studies at particular risk? Environ Health Perspect 123:1113-1122; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408888.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
09:33Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
Published on: December 23, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Introduction to Epidemiology
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...