Exploring selection bias in COVID-19 research: Simulations and prospective analyses of two UK cohort studies
Millard, L. A. C.; Fernandez-Sanles, A.; Carter, A. R.; Hughes, R.; Tilling, K.; Morris, T. P.; Smith, D.; Griffith, G. J.; Clayton, G. L.; Kawabata, E.; Davey Smith, G.; Lawlor, D. A.; Borges, M. C.
Show abstract
BackgroundNon-random selection into analytic subsamples could introduce selection bias in observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity (e.g. including only those have had a COVID-19 PCR test). We explored the potential presence and impact of selection in such studies using data from self-report questionnaires and national registries. MethodsUsing pre-pandemic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (mean age=27.6 (standard deviation [SD]=0.5); 49% female) and UK Biobank (UKB) (mean age=56 (SD=8.1); 55% female) with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19 (UKB only), we investigated predictors of selection into COVID-19 analytic subsamples. We then conducted empirical analyses and simulations to explore the potential presence, direction, and magnitude of bias due to selection when estimating the association of body mass index (BMI) with SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19. ResultsIn both ALSPAC and UKB a broad range of characteristics related to selection, sometimes in opposite directions. For example, more educated participants were more likely to have data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in ALSPAC, but less likely in UKB. We found bias in many simulated scenarios. For example, in one scenario based on UKB, we observed an expected odds ratio of 2.56 compared to a simulated true odds ratio of 3, per standard deviation higher BMI. ConclusionAnalyses using COVID-19 self-reported or national registry data may be biased due to selection. The magnitude and direction of this bias depends on the outcome definition, the true effect of the risk factor, and the assumed selection mechanism. Key messagesO_LIObservational studies assessing the association of risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity may be biased due to non-random selection into the analytic sample. C_LIO_LIResearchers should carefully consider the extent that their results may be biased due to selection, and conduct sensitivity analyses and simulations to explore the robustness of their results. We provide code for these analyses that is applicable beyond COVID-19 research. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: Analysis of a nationwide serosurvey in the Netherlands 93%
- Circulating insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of 25 common conditions: outcome-wide analyses in the UK Biobank Study 93%
- Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reweighting the UK Biobank to reflect its underlying sampling population substantially reduces pervasive selection bias due to volunteering 95%
- Association between household composition and severe COVID-19 outcomes in older people by ethnicity: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform 94%
- Cohort Profile: Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a time-series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 94%
- CoMix: Changes in social contacts as measured by the contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic in England between March 2020 and March 2021 93%
- Symptom reporting in over 1 million people: community detection of COVID-19 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Determinants of pre-vaccination antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2: a population-based longitudinal study (COVIDENCE UK) 93%
- Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors and risk conditions eligible for shielding support: REACT-SCOT case-control study 93%
- Ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in the second and third waves of the pandemic in England during the vaccine roll-out: a retrospective, population-based cohort study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A unified framework for estimating country-specific cumulative incidence for 18 diseases stratified by polygenic risk 94%
- Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population 94%
- Genetic predictors of participation in optional components of UK Biobank 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.