↓ Skip to main content

Within- and between-group regression for improving the robustness of causal claims in cross-sectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Within- and between-group regression for improving the robustness of causal claims in cross-sectional analysis
Published in
Environmental Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0047-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Genser, Carlos A. Teles, Mauricio L. Barreto, Joachim E. Fischer

Abstract

A major objective of environmental epidemiology is to elucidate exposure-health outcome associations. To increase the variance of observed exposure concentrations, researchers recruit individuals from different geographic areas. The common analytical approach uses multilevel analysis to estimate individual-level associations adjusted for individual and area covariates. However, in cross-sectional data this approach does not differentiate between residual confounding at the individual level and at the area level. An approach allowing researchers to distinguish between within-group effects and between-group effects would improve the robustness of causal claims. We applied an extended multilevel approach to a large cross-sectional study aimed to elucidate the hypothesized link between drinking water pollution from perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA) and plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) or lymphocyte counts. Using within- and between-group regression of the individual PFOA serum concentrations, we partitioned the total effect into a within- and between-group effect by including the aggregated group average of the individual exposure concentrations as an additional predictor variable. For both biomarkers, we observed a strong overall association with PFOA blood levels. However, for lymphocyte counts the extended multilevel approach revealed the absence of a between-group effect, suggesting that most of the observed total effect was due to individual level confounding. In contrast, for CRP we found consistent between- and within-group effects, which corroborates the causal claim for the association between PFOA blood levels and CRP. Between- and within-group regression modelling augments cross-sectional analysis of epidemiological data by supporting the unmasking of non-causal associations arising from hidden confounding at different levels. In the application example presented in this paper, the approach suggested individual confounding as a probable explanation for the first observed association and strengthened the robustness of the causal claim for the second one.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Environmental Science 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Other 14 32%
Unknown 11 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,282,766
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,341
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,678
of 262,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#26
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.