7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Methods to Address Self-Selection and Reverse Causation in Studies of Neighborhood Environments and Brain Health

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Preliminary evidence suggests that neighborhood environments, such as socioeconomic disadvantage, pedestrian and physical activity infrastructure, and availability of neighborhood destinations (e.g., parks), may be associated with late-life cognitive functioning and risk of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD). The supposition is that these neighborhood characteristics are associated with factors such as mental health, environmental exposures, health behaviors, and social determinants of health that in turn promote or diminish cognitive reserve and resilience in later life. However, observed associations may be biased by self-selection or reverse causation, such as when individuals with better cognition move to denser neighborhoods because they prefer many destinations within walking distance of home, or when individuals with deteriorating health choose residences offering health services in neighborhoods in rural or suburban areas (e.g., assisted living). Research on neighborhood environments and ADRD has typically focused on late-life brain health outcomes, which makes it difficult to disentangle true associations from associations that result from reverse causality. In this paper, we review study designs and methods to help reduce bias due to reverse causality and self-selection, while drawing attention to the unique aspects of these approaches when conducting research on neighborhoods and brain aging.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology.

          Observational epidemiological studies suffer from many potential biases, from confounding and from reverse causation, and this limits their ability to robustly identify causal associations. Several high-profile situations exist in which randomized controlled trials of precisely the same intervention that has been examined in observational studies have produced markedly different findings. In other observational sciences, the use of instrumental variable (IV) approaches has been one approach to strengthening causal inferences in non-experimental situations. The use of germline genetic variants that proxy for environmentally modifiable exposures as instruments for these exposures is one form of IV analysis that can be implemented within observational epidemiological studies. The method has been referred to as 'Mendelian randomization', and can be considered as analogous to randomized controlled trials. This paper outlines Mendelian randomization, draws parallels with IV methods, provides examples of implementation of the approach and discusses limitations of the approach and some methods for dealing with these.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Clinical and Biomarker Changes in Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Disease

            The order and magnitude of pathologic processes in Alzheimer's disease are not well understood, partly because the disease develops over many years. Autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease has a predictable age at onset and provides an opportunity to determine the sequence and magnitude of pathologic changes that culminate in symptomatic disease. In this prospective, longitudinal study, we analyzed data from 128 participants who underwent baseline clinical and cognitive assessments, brain imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood tests. We used the participant's age at baseline assessment and the parent's age at the onset of symptoms of Alzheimer's disease to calculate the estimated years from expected symptom onset (age of the participant minus parent's age at symptom onset). We conducted cross-sectional analyses of baseline data in relation to estimated years from expected symptom onset in order to determine the relative order and magnitude of pathophysiological changes. Concentrations of amyloid-beta (Aβ)(42) in the CSF appeared to decline 25 years before expected symptom onset. Aβ deposition, as measured by positron-emission tomography with the use of Pittsburgh compound B, was detected 15 years before expected symptom onset. Increased concentrations of tau protein in the CSF and an increase in brain atrophy were detected 15 years before expected symptom onset. Cerebral hypometabolism and impaired episodic memory were observed 10 years before expected symptom onset. Global cognitive impairment, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was detected 5 years before expected symptom onset, and patients met diagnostic criteria for dementia at an average of 3 years after expected symptom onset. We found that autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease was associated with a series of pathophysiological changes over decades in CSF biochemical markers of Alzheimer's disease, brain amyloid deposition, and brain metabolism as well as progressive cognitive impairment. Our results require confirmation with the use of longitudinal data and may not apply to patients with sporadic Alzheimer's disease. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; DIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00869817.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization

              Instrumental variable analysis is an approach for obtaining causal inferences on the effect of an exposure (risk factor) on an outcome from observational data. It has gained in popularity over the past decade with the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables, known as Mendelian randomization. An instrumental variable is associated with the exposure, but not associated with any confounder of the exposure–outcome association, nor is there any causal pathway from the instrumental variable to the outcome other than via the exposure. Under the assumption that a single instrumental variable or a set of instrumental variables for the exposure is available, the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated. There are several methods available for instrumental variable estimation; we consider the ratio method, two-stage methods, likelihood-based methods, and semi-parametric methods. Techniques for obtaining statistical inferences and confidence intervals are presented. The statistical properties of estimates from these methods are compared, and practical advice is given about choosing a suitable analysis method. In particular, bias and coverage properties of estimators are considered, especially with weak instruments. Settings particularly relevant to Mendelian randomization are prioritized in the paper, notably the scenario of a continuous exposure and a continuous or binary outcome.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                16 June 2021
                June 2021
                : 18
                : 12
                : 6484
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Institute for Human Health and Disease Intervention (I-HEALTH), Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA
                [2 ]Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA; Willa.Brenowitz@ 123456ucsf.edu
                [3 ]Department of Neurology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA; olmeyer@ 123456ucdavis.edu
                [4 ]Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions (CUES), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA; shoermann@ 123456fau.edu (S.H.); jrenne@ 123456fau.edu (J.R.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: lbesser@ 123456fau.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-8669
                Article
                ijerph-18-06484
                10.3390/ijerph18126484
                8296350
                34208454
                1b8f8512-4b10-4825-b3ff-e3e7611f78a7
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 08 May 2021
                : 13 June 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                epidemiological methods,causality,reverse causation,self-selection,bias,neighborhood,built environment,brain health,alzheimer disease,cognition

                Comments

                Comment on this article