<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods</title>
        <author>Alaa Althubaiti</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods</title>
          <date>2016</date>
          <publisher>Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.2147/jmdh.s104807</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">althubaiti2016-information-bias-in-health-researc</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">althubaiti2016-information-bias-in-health-researc.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">b01907f38e82550d4cc8aea23d181d9c10b21d97</note>
          <note type="rights">cc-by-nc</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>epidemiology</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="object_of_study" ana="#object_of_study" resp="#paper">
        <label>A CONCEPT WHOSE OWN VOCABULARY IS THE EXAMPLE - information bias, itself &#x27;otherwise known as misclassification&#x27;, whose two main subtypes carry four names each in a single sentence apiece, with the alternatives listed and never distinguished</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="research_question" ana="#research_question" resp="#paper">
        <label>which forms of information bias arise in observational and experimental medical research, how each is recognised, and what can be done about it at design, measurement and analysis</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="contribution" ana="#contribution" resp="#paper">
        <label>a short taxonomy of information bias - self-reporting bias (social desirability, recall), measurement error bias, confirmation bias - each with its named alternatives, its typical study design, and an adjustment or prevention strategy</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>method</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>systematic error introduced by how a measurement is obtained rather than by whom it is obtained from - and which is often introduced unintentionally, so that it is hard to recognise even by the researcher who caused it</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>review</label>
        <term>review</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>ONE ERROR, FOUR NAMES, IN ONE SENTENCE: `Quotation withheld` Four names offered as interchangeable, with no test given for telling them apart - and one of them, `measurement bias`, names the consequence while the others name the cause</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND AGAIN FOR THE THIRD FORM: `Quotation withheld` And the paper&#x27;s subject itself: `Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification`. Three concepts, four, four and two names, in one short review - the corpus holds papers that count 138 definitions of a term; this is the same phenomenon at the scale of a synonym list, and it is not remarked on</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE TOP-LEVEL DEFINITION IS A GENUS AND A DIFFERENTIA: `Quotation withheld In health studies, bias can arise from two different sources; the approach adopted for selecting subjects ... or the approach adopted for collecting or measuring data ... termed as selection bias and information bias.` The partition is by WHERE THE ERROR ENTERS, not by what it does to the estimate - which is why the same arithmetic consequence can belong to either</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A DISTINCTION THE FIELD IS EXPLICITLY WARNED NOT TO COLLAPSE: `Quotation withheld` The warning exists because the two are routinely conflated, and the cost of conflating them is that the standard toolbox appears to cover both and covers one</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>AND A TERM DEFINED BY WHAT IT IGNORES: `An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results can be referred to as a naive analysis.` Its consequences are given as `inconsistent (or biased) and/or inefficient estimators of regression parameters`. A name for the default practice, which is the rhetorical move that makes an omission visible</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE MECHANISM OF RECALL BIAS IS SPELLED OUT AS A CHAIN: `in a case-control study, Quotation withheld As such, true exposure might be underreported in healthy controls and overreported in the cases. The size of the difference ... will consequently be inflated, and, in turn, the observed odds ratio would also increase.` The bias has a direction, and the direction is predictable from the design - which is what makes it adjustable at all</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE FIX FOR SELF-REPORTING IS VALIDATION AGAINST SOMETHING ELSE: `internal validation` compares responses `with other data collection methods, such as laboratory measurements`; `external validation` uses `medical record checks or reports from family or friends`. The instrument is checked against a second instrument, never against the truth - and the paper then says the laboratory measurements are themselves `often subject to measurement errors`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE VALIDATION HAS ITS OWN SAMPLING PROBLEM: `It is important to have a random selection of individuals so that results from the validation can be generalized to any group of participants. When the sampling approach is not random and subjective, the results from the validation study can only apply to the same group of individuals.` A correction factor inherits the scope of the study that produced it - polman2011&#x27;s MAGNIMS refusal, in a different discipline</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A WHOLE DESIGN IS DEMOTED ON THE STRENGTH OF ONE BIAS: `bias often accompanies results from case-control studies. Hence, case-control studies can be conducted in order to generate a research hypothesis, but not to evaluate prognoses or treatment effects.` A study design assigned a permitted use - the same move donnelly2019 makes about a definition, here made about a method</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE ONE FIELD THAT DOES ADJUST FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR IS NAMED: `Quotation withheld` Where a number has to survive cross-examination, its error is modelled - the practice follows the consequence, not the methodology</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-REPORT AND RECORDS IS DISEASE-SPECIFIC: `a high agreement was found between self-reported questionnaires and medical record diagnoses of diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke but not for heart failure.` The instrument is not uniformly valid across the things it measures, which is exactly what prigerson2009&#x27;s differential item functioning analysis tests for and deletes</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>THE FOUR NAMES ARE LISTED AND NEVER SEPARATED. `measurement error, instrumental error, measurement imprecision, or measurement bias` are offered as one thing; `confirmatory, ascertainment, or observer bias` likewise. Some of these are not synonyms in ordinary use - *instrumental* error is a subclass of measurement error, and *observer* bias is usually distinguished from *confirmation* bias by who holds the belief. A review of error that hands the reader an unsorted synonym list is reproducing the problem it describes</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE ADVICE IS ADMITTED TO BE HARD TO FOLLOW: `Bias is often not accounted for in practice. Even though a number of adjustment and prevention methods ... are available, applying them can be rather challenging due to limited time and resources. For example, measurement error bias properties might be difficult to detect, particularly if there is a lack of information about the measuring instrument.` The adjustment methods all require knowing the error distribution, and the error distribution requires a validation study that is `expensive`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND THE VALIDATION CHAIN BOTTOMS OUT ON ANOTHER MEASUREMENT: laboratory measurements are the recommended standard for validating self-report, and they are `often subject to measurement errors` - `in a validation study to estimate sodium intake using a 24-hour urinary excretion method, the estimated sodium intake tended to be lower than the true amount`. There is no step in the chain that touches the true value, and the paper says so about its own recommended remedy</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND CONFIRMATION BIAS IS THE ONE WITH NO ADJUSTMENT METHOD AT ALL: the remedies offered are independent checks, blinding, and `specific education and training programs`, and the conclusion is `it is important to accept that bias is a part of investigations. Quantifying this inevitable bias and its potential sources must be part of well-developed conclusions.` The paper&#x27;s title promises adjustment methods; for the third of its three biases there are none</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="controls" ana="#controls[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>validating a self-reporting instrument against laboratory measurements (internal) or medical records and family report (external) before using it</label>
        <note>eliminates: social desirability bias in answers about drug use, income, diet or violence · outcome: partial</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="controls" ana="#controls[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>requiring the validation sample to be randomly selected</label>
        <note>eliminates: a correction factor that applies only to the group it was derived from · outcome: held</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t23" type="controls" ana="#controls[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>choosing a short recall period, stratifying it by how many events a participant had, and using memory aids and diaries</label>
        <note>eliminates: recall error scaling with the length of the period being remembered · outcome: partial</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t24" type="controls" ana="#controls[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>blinding or masking, single or double, and independent checks across laboratories</label>
        <note>eliminates: confirmation bias in any step that requires human judgment · outcome: partial</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t25" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>Bias</label>
        <term>Bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t26" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[1]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study</label>
        <term>any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t27" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>selection bias</label>
        <term>selection bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t28" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[3]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>information bias</label>
        <term>information bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t29" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>measurement error</label>
        <term>measurement error</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t30" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[5]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>measurement bias</label>
        <term>measurement bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t31" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[6]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>confirmation bias</label>
        <term>confirmation bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t32" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[7]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>observer bias</label>
        <term>observer bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t33" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[8]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>random sampling</label>
        <term>random sampling</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t34" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[9]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>measurement error variability</label>
        <term>measurement error variability</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t35" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[10]" resp="#paper" cert="0.85">
        <label>An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results</label>
        <term>An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t36" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[11]" resp="#paper" cert="0.85">
        <label>a naïve analysis</label>
        <term>a naïve analysis</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t37" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[12]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>cases</label>
        <term>cases</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t38" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[13]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>healthy controls</label>
        <term>healthy controls</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t39" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[14]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>The size of the difference between the observed rates of exposure to risk factors in cases and controls</label>
        <term>The size of the difference between the observed rates of exposure to risk factors in cases and controls</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t40" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[15]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">
        <label>the observed odds ratio</label>
        <term>the observed odds ratio</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t41" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`bias` - `any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study`; split by WHERE it enters into `selection bias` and `information bias`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t42" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`information bias` - `otherwise known as misclassification`; error originating in `the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t43" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`measurement error` = `instrumental error` = `measurement imprecision` = `measurement bias` - four names presented as interchangeable in one sentence, with no criterion for choosing between them</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t44" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`confirmation bias` - `otherwise known as confirmatory, ascertainment, or observer bias`: `a decision is made according to the subject&#x27;s preconceptions, beliefs, or preferences`</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t45" type="senses" ana="#senses[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>`naive analysis` - `An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results`. A name given to the default practice so that it can be argued against</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t46" type="senses" ana="#senses[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`systematic` vs `random` error - systematic deviations are `either consistently higher or lower than the true values`; random ones are `not consistent`, follow a distribution, and are called `multiplicative or non-gaussian` when proportional to the measurement</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t47" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>extends → the existing bias literature, which the paper says has discussed types of bias while &#x27;the problem of bias is still frequently ignored in practice&#x27;</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t48" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>critiques → the naive analysis - the standard practice of ignoring measurement error, which yields &#x27;inconsistent (or biased) and/or inefficient estimators&#x27;</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t49" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>critiques → the use of case-control studies for anything beyond hypothesis generation, given that &#x27;bias often accompanies results from case-control studies&#x27;</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t50" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>extends → forensic toxicology, named as the one field with &#x27;the most theoretical understanding of measurement bias&#x27;, from which medical research is asked to learn</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t51" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>measurement error —same-as→ measurement bias</label>
        <term>measurement error</term>
        <term>measurement bias</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: &#x27;If these errors…&#x27; Four names, and they are not obviously synonyms: instrumental error names a source, imprecision names a property of the instrument, and measurement bias names what the error does to the estimate. Tagged as the paper states it, and the un-sorted list is recorded as a limitation · the relation stated: measurement error, instrumental error, measurement imprecision and measurement bias are offered as names for one thing, in one sentence, with no test for telling them apart</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t52" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>confirmation bias —same-as→ observer bias</label>
        <term>confirmation bias</term>
        <term>observer bias</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: &#x27;Placing emphasis…&#x27; The second four-name list in one review. In ordinary use &#x27;observer bias&#x27; is the observer&#x27;s expectation affecting a measurement and &#x27;confirmation bias&#x27; is a search strategy over evidence; here they are one entry · the relation stated: confirmation, confirmatory, ascertainment and observer bias are given as names for deciding according to one&#x27;s preconceptions</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t53" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>Bias —operationalised-as→ any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study</label>
        <term>Bias</term>
        <term>any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;Bias can be defined…&#x27; Systematic is doing all the work - the definition excludes random error by construction, and the paper then spends its longest section on random measurement error, which is systematic in its effect on an estimate · the relation stated: bias is defined as systematic error anywhere in a study, which is what allows the split by point of entry rather than by effect</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t54" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>selection bias —distinct-from→ information bias</label>
        <term>selection bias</term>
        <term>information bias</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;In health studies…&#x27; A clean two-way split with a stated criterion, which is more than most of the taxonomies in this corpus manage · the relation stated: the two sources are the approach to choosing subjects and the approach to measuring them - a partition by point of entry, not by consequence</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t55" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>random sampling —distinct-from→ measurement error variability</label>
        <term>random sampling</term>
        <term>measurement error variability</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;However, RANDOM…&#x27; The warning is printed because the conflation is common, and the cost is specific: the confidence interval looks complete and covers one of two error sources · the relation stated: sampling variability is handled by standard statistical methods and measurement error uncertainty is not, so treating them as one hides the second</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t56" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results —same-as→ a naïve analysis</label>
        <term>An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results</term>
        <term>a naïve analysis</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: &#x27;An analysis that…&#x27; Naming the default is how an omission becomes visible. Compare carroll2007&#x27;s &#x27;thinness&#x27; for missing fidelity data: both fields coined a word for a thing that is not there · the relation stated: the ordinary analysis, done without accounting for measurement error, is given a name - and the name is the argument</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t57" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>cases —contrasted-with→ healthy controls</label>
        <term>cases</term>
        <term>healthy controls</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;study, CASES…&#x27; The bias is not noise; it has a sign that follows from the design, which is why the paper can say what it does to the odds ratio · the relation stated: cases recall exposure more readily than controls, so the same true history is reported at different rates on the two sides of the comparison</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t58" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>The size of the difference between the observed rates of exposure to risk factors in cases and controls —causes→ the observed odds ratio</label>
        <term>The size of the difference between the observed rates of exposure to risk factors in cases and controls</term>
        <term>the observed odds ratio</term>
        <note>the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: &#x27;The size of the difference…&#x27; A named error class traced all the way to the published statistic - three steps, each stated, which is what makes recall bias adjustable rather than merely deplorable · the relation stated: the recall asymmetry inflates the observed exposure difference, and the inflated difference raises the odds ratio the study reports</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t59" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>such errors are often called measurement error, instrumental error, measurement imprecision or measurement bias</label>
        <term>such errors are often called measurement error, instrumental error, measurement imprecision or measurement bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t60" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>confirmation bias is also called confirmatory, ascertainment or observer bias</label>
        <term>confirmation bias is also called confirmatory, ascertainment or observer bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t61" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A DISTINCTION THE FIELD IS WARNED NOT TO COLLAPSE: `random sampling should not be confused with measurement error variability ... [standard methods] do not account for uncertainty due to measurement error`</label>
        <term>AND A DISTINCTION THE FIELD IS WARNED NOT TO COLLAPSE: `random sampling should not be confused with measurement error variability ... [standard methods] do not account for uncertainty due to measurement error`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t62" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>AND A NAME FOR THE DEFAULT PRACTICE: `An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error ... can be referred to as a naive analysis`</label>
        <term>AND A NAME FOR THE DEFAULT PRACTICE: `An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error ... can be referred to as a naive analysis`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t63" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND RECALL BIAS HAS A SIGN: cases `more likely to recall exposure ... than healthy controls`, so the difference `will consequently be inflated, and, in turn, the observed odds ratio would also increase`</label>
        <term>AND RECALL BIAS HAS A SIGN: cases `more likely to recall exposure ... than healthy controls`, so the difference `will consequently be inflated, and, in turn, the observed odds ratio would also increase`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t64" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND ONE FIELD DOES ADJUST FOR IT: measurement error bias is `rarely ... adjusted for ... except in the field of forensic medicine`, where it is `particularly relevant for their type of research`</label>
        <term>AND ONE FIELD DOES ADJUST FOR IT: measurement error bias is `rarely ... adjusted for ... except in the field of forensic medicine`, where it is `particularly relevant for their type of research`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t65" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND A STUDY DESIGN IS ASSIGNED A PERMITTED USE: `case-control studies can be conducted in order to generate a research hypothesis, but not to evaluate prognoses or treatment effects`</label>
        <term>AND A STUDY DESIGN IS ASSIGNED A PERMITTED USE: `case-control studies can be conducted in order to generate a research hypothesis, but not to evaluate prognoses or treatment effects`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t66" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND SELF-REPORT AGREES WITH THE RECORD FOR SOME DISEASES AND NOT OTHERS: high agreement for `diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke but not for heart failure`</label>
        <term>AND SELF-REPORT AGREES WITH THE RECORD FOR SOME DISEASES AND NOT OTHERS: high agreement for `diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke but not for heart failure`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t67" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>AND BIAS CAN BE DELIBERATE: `Often bias is unintentionally introduced into a study by researchers, making it difficult to recognize, but it can also be introduced intentionally. Thus, bias remains a very sensitive issue to address and discuss openly`</label>
        <term>AND BIAS CAN BE DELIBERATE: `Often bias is unintentionally introduced into a study by researchers, making it difficult to recognize, but it can also be introduced intentionally. Thus, bias remains a very sensitive issue to address and discuss openly`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t68" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`any systematic error in the design, conduct, or analysis of a study`, split into `selection bias` and `INFORMATION BIAS` by where the error enters</label>
        <term>bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t69" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`otherwise known as misclassification` - it `originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements`</label>
        <term>information bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t70" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>four names in one sentence for `observed measurements [that] will differ from the actual values`, with no criterion offered for choosing between them</label>
        <term>measurement error</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t71" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`otherwise known as confirmatory, ascertainment, or observer bias` - `a decision is made according to the subject&#x27;s preconceptions, beliefs, or preferences`</label>
        <term>confirmation bias</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t72" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>`An analysis that ignores the effect of measurement error on the results` - a name for the default practice</label>
        <term>naïve analysis</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t73" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`the often-marginalized measurement error bias` is the paper&#x27;s own description of the second</label>
        <term>the forms of information bias covered</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t74" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`The size of the difference ... will consequently be inflated`</label>
        <term>the direction of recall bias in a case-control study</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t75" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>self-report is validated against laboratory measurement; laboratory measurement is `often subject to measurement errors`; a 24-hour urinary excretion validation of sodium intake `tended to be lower than the true amount`. Every step compares one instrument with another, and the paper says so about its own recommended remedy</label>
        <term>a validation chain with no true value at the end of it</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t76" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`Commonly used statistical methods can address the sampling variability during data analysis, but they do not account for uncertainty due to measurement error.` A confidence interval computed the usual way looks complete and covers one of two error sources</label>
        <term>what the standard toolbox silently does not cover</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t77" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`the observed measurements deviate from true values in a consistent manner` - correctable by calibration against a reference measurement</label>
        <term>systematic error</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t78" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>`the deviation ... is not consistent`, follows a distribution, and when proportional to the measured amount is `referred to as multiplicative or non-gaussian errors`</label>
        <term>random error</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t79" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>the variable the reviewer can actually set - `a short recall period is preferable to a long one, particularly when asking participants about routine or frequent events`</label>
        <term>recall period</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s104807.</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
