Next Article in Journal
Removal of Paracetamol Using Effective Advanced Oxidation Processes
Previous Article in Journal
Dose-Dependent Toxic Effect of Cotinine-Verified Tobacco Smoking on Systemic Inflammation in Apparently Healthy Men and Women: A Nationwide Population-Based Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Relation between Plasma PCB Concentrations and Elevated Autistic Behaviours using Bayesian Predictive Odds Ratios
Article Menu
Issue 3 (February-1) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(3), 504; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030504

Repeated Measures Regression in Laboratory, Clinical and Environmental Research: Common Misconceptions in the Matter of Different Within- and Between-Subject Slopes

1
Department of Statistics and Biostatistics and Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
2
School of Health Sciences and Practice, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
3
Environmental and Occupational Health Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
4
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 21 October 2018 / Revised: 4 February 2019 / Accepted: 6 February 2019 / Published: 11 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Collection Methodological Innovations and Reflections)
Full-Text   |   PDF [1587 KB, uploaded 14 February 2019]   |  
  |   Review Reports

Abstract

When using repeated measures linear regression models to make causal inference in laboratory, clinical and environmental research, it is typically assumed that the within-subject association of differences (or changes) in predictor variable values across replicates is the same as the between-subject association of differences in those predictor variable values. However, this is often false. For example, with body weight as the predictor variable and blood cholesterol (which increases with higher body fat) as the outcome: (i) a 10-lb. weight increase in the same adult affects more greatly an increase in cholesterol in that adult than does (ii) one adult weighing 10 lbs. more than a second indicate higher cholesterol in the heavier adult. A 10-lb. weight gain in the first adult more likely reflects a build-up of body fat in that person, while a second person being 10 lbs. heavier than the first could be influenced by other factors, such as the second person being taller. Hence, to make causal inferences, different within- and between-subject slopes should be separately modeled. A related misconception commonly made using generalized estimation equations (GEE) and mixed models on repeated measures (i.e., for fitting cross-sectional regression) is that the working correlation structure only influences variance of the parameter estimates. However, only independence working correlation guarantees that the modeled parameters have interpretability. We illustrate this with an example where changing the working correlation from independence to equicorrelation qualitatively biases parameters of GEE models and show that this happens because within- and between-subject slopes for the outcomes regressed on the predictor variables differ. We then systematically describe several common mechanisms that cause within- and between-subject slopes to differ: change effects, lag/reverse-lag and spillover causality, shared within-subject measurement bias or confounding, and predictor variable measurement error. The misconceptions we describe should be better publicized. Repeated measures analyses should compare within- and between-subject slopes of predictors and when they do differ, investigate the causal reasons for this. View Full-Text
Keywords: within-/between-subject associations; repeated measures; cross-sectional regression; generalized estimating equations; mixed models; working correlation structure within-/between-subject associations; repeated measures; cross-sectional regression; generalized estimating equations; mixed models; working correlation structure
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoover, D.R.; Shi, Q.; Burstyn, I.; Anastos, K. Repeated Measures Regression in Laboratory, Clinical and Environmental Research: Common Misconceptions in the Matter of Different Within- and Between-Subject Slopes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 504.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top