Measurement error in environmental epidemiology and the shape of exposure-response curves

Both classical and Berkson exposure measurement errors as encountered in environmental epidemiology data can result in biases in fitted exposure-response relationships that are large enough to affect the interpretation and use of the apparent exposure-response shapes in risk assessment applications. A variety of sources of potential measurement error exist in the process of estimating individual exposures to environmental contaminants, and the authors review the evaluation in the literature of the magnitudes and patterns of exposure measurement errors that prevail in actual practice. It is well known among statisticians that random errors in the values of independent variables (such as exposure in exposure-response curves) may tend to bias regression results. For increasing curves, this effect tends to flatten and apparently linearize what is in truth a steeper and perhaps more curvilinear or even threshold-bearing relationship. The degree of bias is tied to the magnitude of the measurement error in the independent variables. It has been shown that the degree of bias known to apply to actual studies is sufficient to produce a false linear result, and that although nonparametric smoothing and other error-mitigating techniques may assist in identifying a threshold, they do not guarantee detection of a threshold. The consequences of this could be great, as it could lead to a misallocation of resources towards regulations that do not offer any benefit to public health.