Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Measurement error in exposures and confounders can bias exposure-outcome associations but is rarely considered. We aimed to assess random measurement error of all continuous variables in UK Biobank and explore approaches to mitigate its impact on exposure-outcome associations. METHODS: Random measurement error was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all continuous variables with repeat measures. Regression calibration was used to correct for random error in exposures and confounders, using the associations of red blood cell distribution width (RDW), C-reactive protein (CRP) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D 25(OH)D with mortality as illustrative examples. RESULTS: The 2858 continuous variables with repeat measures varied in sample size from 109 to 49 121. They fell into three groups: (i) baseline visit 529 variables; median (interquartile range) ICC = 0.64 (0.57, 0.83); (ii) online diet by 24-h recall 22 variables; 0.35 (0.30, 0.40) and (iii) imaging measures 2307 variables; 0.85 (0.73, 0.94). Highest ICCs were for anthropometric and medical history measures, and lowest for dietary and heart magnetic resonance imaging.The ICCs (95% confidence interval) for RDW, CRP and 25(OH)D were 0.52 (0.51, 0.53), 0.29 (0.27, 0.30) and 0.55 (0.54, 0.56), respectively. Higher RDW and levels of CRP were associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality, and higher concentration of 25(OH)D with lower risk. After correction for random measurement error in the main exposure, the associations all strengthened. Confounder correction did not influence estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Random measurement error varies widely and is often non-negligible. For UK Biobank we provide relevant statistics and adaptable code to help other researchers explore and correct for this.
Rutter et al. (Mon,) studied this question.