Sensitivity analysis for random measurement error using regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation
Linda Nab, Rolf H.H. Groenwold

TL;DR
This study compares regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation methods for sensitivity analysis of measurement error without validation data, finding regression calibration to be unbiased and more reliable.
Contribution
It provides the first comprehensive comparison of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation for measurement error sensitivity analysis without validation data.
Findings
Regression calibration was unbiased across scenarios.
Simulation-extrapolation showed bias and slightly higher MSE.
Regression calibration maintained nominal confidence interval coverage.
Abstract
Sensitivity analysis for measurement error can be applied in the absence of validation data by means of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation. These have not been compared for this purpose. A simulation study was conducted comparing the performance of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation in a multivariable model. The performance of the two methods was evaluated in terms of bias, mean squared error (MSE) and confidence interval coverage, for ranging reliability of the error-prone measurement (0.2-0.9), sample size (125-1,000), number of replicates (2-10), and R-squared (0.03-0.75). It was assumed that no validation data were available about the error-free measures, while measurement error variance was correctly estimated. In various scenarios, regression calibration was unbiased while simulation-extrapolation was biased: median bias was 1.4% (interquartile…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
