Paper detail

Understanding the effects of dichotomization of continuous outcomes on geostatistical inference

Diagnosis is often based on the exceedance or not of continuous health indicators of a predefined cut-off value, so as to classify patients into positives and negatives for the disease under investigation. In this paper, we investigate the effects of dichotomization of spatially-referenced continuous outcome variables on geostatistical inference. Although this issue has been extensively studied in other fields, dichotomization is still a common practice in epidemiological studies. Furthermore, the effects of this practice in the context of prevalence mapping have not been fully understood. Here, we demonstrate how spatial correlation affects the loss of information due to dichotomization, how linear geostatistical models can be used to map disease prevalence and thus avoid dichotomization, and finally, how dichotomization affects our predictive inference on prevalence. To pursue these objectives, we develop a metric, based on the composite likelihood, which can be used to quantify the potential loss of information after dichotomization without requiring the fitting of Binomial geostatistical models. Through a simulation study and two applications on disease mapping in Africa, we show that, as thresholds used for dichotomization move further away from the mean of the underlying process, the performance of binomial geostatistical models deteriorates substantially. We also find that dichotomization can lead to the loss of fine scale features of disease prevalence and increased uncertainty in the parameter estimates, especially in the presence of a large noise to signal ratio. These findings strongly support the conclusions from previous studies that dichotomization should be always avoided whenever feasible.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.