Übersetzung im Kontext von „selection bias“ in Englisch-Deutsch von Reverso Context: Please explain how the envisaged methods address potential selection . Viele übersetzte Beispielsätze mit "selection bias" – Deutsch-Englisch Wörterbuch und Suchmaschine für Millionen von Deutsch-Übersetzungen. “Selection Bias“ – Auswahlfehler in der Marktforschung: ver- kannt und unterschätzt? Die Allgegenwart des „Selection Bias“ – in diesem Beitrag auf Deutsch. Unparteilichkeit des Ausleseausschusses in Frage gestellt wird. Skrill bezahlmethode Ausdruck "geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl" stammt aus der dt. Vielleicht gibt's hier also irgendwelche Vorbehalte. Unterschiede in den Rahmenbedingungen der zu vergleichenden Gruppen: Please explain how the envisaged methods address potential selection fulltilt.com. Aside from the risks powerball deutschland spielen interviewers collecting such data during a conflict, these include the selection bias of households in the sample, a lack of credible population data to which to apply the changed mortality rates, and mistaken or misleading accounts by participants. Es muss auch bedacht werden, dass bei Metaanalysen eine Selektion von Studien mit positiven Ergebnissen vorliegen kann Publikationsbias.
deutsch selection bias - consider, thatFür diese Funktion ist es erforderlich, sich anzumelden oder sich kostenlos zu registrieren. Wie finde ich die neuen Satzbeispiele? Forumsdiskussionen, die den Suchbegriff enthalten selection bias Letzter Beitrag: Entwicklungsvorspannungsauswahl zur Verwendung in einem elektrofotografischem Verfahren, welches fotoempfindliches Material verwendet. John Hopkins University Press; Unterschiede in den Rahmenbedingungen der zu vergleichenden Gruppen: Otherwise your message will be regarded as spam. Der Eintrag wurde im Forum gespeichert. Für die richtige Auswahl des ist es wichtig, für die einzelnen Stichprobenoptionen von ACL die Auswirkungen der Bewertung und der Auswahlverfahren auf das Ergebnis zu kennen.
In , Joseph Berkson 1 described bias in the assessment of the relationship between an exposure and a disease due to the conduct of the study in a clinic, where attendance was affected by both exposure and disease Figure 1A 1.
Figure 1A left shows a causal structure with an exposure E, an outcome D, and a factor C clinic attendance affected by both E and D.
Here, I draw analogies between Berksonian selection bias and missing data. Like Berkson, I restrict the main discussion to a situation in which there is no confounding of the exposure-outcome relationship under study, and so consider only three variables: The organization of this paper is as follows.
I first remark on the structure proposed by Berkson Figures 1A and 1B and on close variants of that structure as a model for both selection bias and missing data bias.
I then explore the four possible causal diagrams generated by the three variables E, D, C and the further assumption that, due to temporality, C has no causal effect on either E or D.
I discuss implications of the causal structure for bias, and provide brief illustrative examples. The paper addresses additional issues in missing data, and concludes with a brief discussion.
Before proceeding, it will be useful to review the stamdard definitions of three types of missingness missingness completely at random, at random, and not at random as well as the definition of complete case analysis.
Data are missing completely at random MCAR , when the probability of missingness depends on values of neither observed nor unobserved data.
Data are missing at random MAR when the probability of missingness depends only on observed data. Data are missing not at random MNAR; alternately, there are non-ignorable missing data or non-random missingness when the probability of missingness pattern depends in part on unobserved data.
Collider bias or collider-stratification bias, or collider-conditioning bias 2 , 3 , 7 is bias resulting from conditioning on a common effect of at least two causes.
In Figure 1 , attendance at clinic C is an effect of both exposure E and disease D. This association is represented by a dotted line in Figure 1B.
First, collider stratification is usually though by no means always explained in a situation in which exposure and disease are marginally independent; it is important to note that stratification on a collider can also introduce bias when exposure and disease are not independent.
Second, while some explanations of collider bias emphasize stratification, today we understand that similar biases are introduced by any form of conditioning, including restriction and stratification on colliders.
While an apparently minor point, this recognition gives us a key pivot for moving from selection bias to missing data. Restriction to a single level of a collider C is strongly analogous to restricting data to persons who are not missing.
If the study is conducted at a antenatal care clinic, then both pregnancy and a new diagnosis of AIDS may affect presence at the clinic, and conduct of the study in that setting may lead to a biased estimate of the relationship between pregnancy and time to AIDS.
Figure 2 shows a causal structure in which neither E nor D has any causal effect on C. Thus, conditioning on C — or restricting to a level of C — is equivalent to taking a simple random sample of the original cohort.
From a selection-bias perspective, this obviously will introduce no bias; from a missing-data perspective, this is equivalent to data missing completely at random.
Neither E nor D affects factor C, so conditioning on or restricting to a level of C amounts to simple random sampling.
Table 1 shows the hypothetical cohort of patients we would have observed if we had studied the effect of E on D in for example a population sampled at random from the total eligible population, including some who attended clinic and some who did not.
Because C is unaffected by E or D, this is equivalent to simple random sampling; we observe a fixed proportion of individuals regardless of values of E and D in this case, some fraction f.
In this case, conditioning on clinic attendance amounts to a simple random sample of size f N from the original N subjects, repeated independently for every combination of E and D.
As can be readily seen in Table 2 , all measures are unbiased. Clinic attendance might be influenced by various additional factors e.
Independence of these additional factors and both E and D is sufficient but not necessary for lack of bias when conditioning on C.
If attendance at our clinic is due only to distance of home from the clinic, and not due to pregnancy status nor to AIDS diagnosis, directly or indirectly , then analyses of these women will be unbiased.
Figure 3 shows a case in which exposure E is the only cause of C. From a selection-bias perspective, restricting on C will amount to simple random sampling within level of exposure; from a missing data perspective, data are missing at random, or completely at random within level of exposure.
As can be ascertained from Table 3 , a crude estimate of exposure or disease prevalence will in general be biased under these conditions: However, because data are missing completely at random within exposure category, the risk by exposure status can be calculated without bias: In consequence, all contrasts of risks, including risk differences, risk ratios, and odds ratios are unbiased in this setting.
E, but not D, affects factor C, so conditioning on or restricting to a level of C amounts to simple random sampling within level of E. However, in real-data analysis it is almost never the case that the causal diagram is as simple as Figure 3 ; with more complications, it is less likely that this condition will hold.
For example, if we add to Figure 3 a third variable F that causes both C and the D, C is a collider for E and F; then, conditioning on C creates bias of the E-D relationship via F as Figure in the book by Rothman and colleagues Assume our clinic does not provide extensive antenatal care beyond antiretroviral therapy, and so attendance at our clinic is lower among women after they become pregnant.
If attendance is not affected by AIDS diagnosis or any other factors, then a contrast of risk of AIDS comparing pregnant and non-pregnant women attending our clinic will be unbiased.
Figure 4 shows a case in which disease status D is the only cause of C. Conditioning on C leads to simple random sampling within level of the outcome Table 4.
As with Figure 3 , the causal structure in Figure 4 leads to biased estimates of prevalence; but in addition, this structure leads to biased estimates of risk.
D, but not E, affects factor C, so conditioning on or restricting to a level of C amounts to simple random sampling within level of D.
In such a case-control study, the case-control odds ratio provides an unbiased estimate of the cohort odds ratio; this is true in Table 4 , as well.
Just as in such a case-control study, we are unable to directly estimate absolute risks, risk differences, or risk ratios without additional information e.
Thus if outcome status is the sole direct cause of selection into a study or analysis, or of missing data, the study is analogous to a case-control study under a particular control-sampling scheme; The cohort odds ratio will be unbiased in complete case analysis — assuming no additional variables of interest as in previous examples.
However, when the true effect of an exposure on the outcome is null, then missingness will not be introduced into the risk difference and risk ratio.
Assume that women are more likely to miss clinic visits if they become seriously ill, and so attendance in clinic is affected by AIDS status.
If attendance at clinic is not affected by pregnancy status or any other factors and there is a non-null association between pregnancy and time to AIDS, then the risk difference and risk ratio for AIDS comparing pregnant and non-pregnant women will generally be biased, while an odds ratio for AIDS comparing pregnant and non-pregnant women will be generally unbiased.
One critical special case is when E and D are non-interacting: In this case, Table 5 reduces to Table 4 and the odds ratio is unbiased in expectation.
E and D affect factor C, so conditioning on or restricting to a level of C amounts to simple random sampling within level of both E and D.
If attendance at our clinic rises during pregnancy and with a new AIDS-defining event, and if attendance changes synergistically with both pregnancy and AIDS together, then a contrasts of risk and odds of AIDS comparing pregnant and non-pregnant women will be generally biased.
Recall that data are missing at random when the probability of missingness depends on observed data, and are missing not at random when probability of missingness depends at least in part on the missing data themselves.
Figure 3 showed a situation in which missingness is caused by exposure alone, and complete case analysis can be expected to yield unbiased risk differences, risk ratios, and odds ratios.
But this figure does not specify which variable was missing as a result of the exposure. In particular, then, the discussion of Figure 3 applies whether the exposure caused missingness in the outcome and so data are missing at random , or whether the exposure caused missingness in the exposure and so data are missing not at random.
Whether the value of the exposure led to missing outcome, or to missing exposure, missingness remains completely at random within levels of the exposure and so equivalent to simple random sampling by exposure level.
Thus, even when these data are missing not at random, the complete case analysis yields unbiased estimates of the risks, risk differences, risk ratios, and odds ratios.
Echoing earlier examples, pregnancy status alone might make it more likely that pregnancy status is missing not at random , or that AIDS status is missing at random: Figure 4 is also compatible with a missing-at-random condition; for example, if the value of the outcome caused the value of the exposure to be missing, then missingness would depend on observed data alone.
But even when these data are missing at random, the complete case analysis yields biased estimates of the risks, the risk difference, and the risk ratio, with the odds ratio remaining unbiased.
However, when data are missing at random and models are fit correctly , both weighting 15 and multiple imputation 16 approaches can be used to obtain unbiased estimates of the risk difference and risk ratio.
Analogies between selection bias and missing data have been made implicitly by other authors, but these analogies are not a routine part of teaching and understanding these subjects.
Just as others have argued with regard to selection bias 2 , 3 and overadjustment bias, 17 , 18 I here argue that structural considerations are critical for assessing the impact of missing data on estimates of effect.
If the exposure is the only cause of missingness Figure 3 , then whether data are missing at random or missing not at random is largely inconsequential: This article or section may be written in a style that is too abstract to be readily understandable by general audiences.
Please improve it by defining technical terminology, and by adding examples. Retrieved on September 23, Site in turn cites: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
American College of Physicians. International Journal of Epidemiology. Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy.
Is a doomsday catastrophe likely? Cognitive bias mitigation Debiasing Heuristics in judgment and decision-making.
Clinical research and experimental design. Clinical trial Trial protocols Adaptive clinical trial Academic clinical trials Clinical study design.
Randomized controlled trial Scientific experiment Blind experiment Open-label trial. Incidence , Cumulative incidence , Prevalence , Point prevalence , Period prevalence.
Risk difference , Number needed to treat , Number needed to harm , Risk ratio , Relative risk reduction , Odds ratio , Hazard ratio.
Attributable fraction among the exposed , Attributable fraction for the population , Preventable fraction among the unexposed , Preventable fraction for the population.
Clinical endpoint , Virulence , Infectivity , Mortality rate , Morbidity , Case fatality rate , Specificity and sensitivity , Likelihood-ratios , Pre- and post-test probability.
Risk—benefit ratio Systematic review Replication Meta-analysis Intention-to-treat analysis. Selection bias Survivorship bias Correlation does not imply causation Null result.