Case-control studies self-reported exposures

The biomarker is validated in a cross-sectional population-based study to determine if there are correlations between self-reported HCA exposure (for example, food frequency questionnaire using photographs similar to the case-control study reported by Butler et al.) and HCA measurements. 

Spencer P, McCauley L, Lapidus J et al. (2001). Self-reported exposures and their association with unexplained illness in a population based case-control study of Gulf War veterans. J Occup Environ Med, 43, 1041-1056. 

A case-control study conducted with 183 neuroblastoma cases, aged 0-14 years diagnosed among residents of New York state (excluding New York City) between 1976 and 1987, found a significant increase in risk of neuroblastoma associated with self-reported paternal exposure to creosote (21 cases,... 

Gryhoski J, Weinstein D, Ordway NK Toxic encephalopathy apparently related to the use of an insect repellent. N Engl J Med 264 289-291, 1961 Haley RW, Kurt TL Self-reported exposure to neurotoxic chemical combinations in the Gulf War a cross-sectional epidemiologic study. JAMA 277 231-237,1997 Haley RW, Horn J, Roland PS, et al Evaluation of neurologic function in Gulf War veterans a blinded case-control study. JAMA 277 223-230, 1997a... 

The accuracy of exposure assessment is determined by systematic and random errors in the assessment. For quantitative exposure assessments, important sources of error include measurement errors (i.e. from laboratory and field monitoring techniques), as well as variations in exposure over time and space. For qualitative exposure proxies (e.g. self-reported past exposures, occupational histories or expert evaluations), the most important sources of error are recall bias (systematic differences in exposure recall between cases and controls) and random error, expressed in terms of intra- and inter-rater agreement. Although systematic errors can result in serious misinterpretations of the data, especially due to scaling problems, random errors have received more attention in epidemiology because this type of error is pervasive, and its effect is usually to diminish estimates of association between exposure and disease. The magnitude of random errors can be considerable in epidemiological field studies. 

---