Literature DB >> 22865328

A general binomial regression model to estimate standardized risk differences from binary response data.

Stephanie A Kovalchik1, Ravi Varadhan, Barbara Fetterman, Nancy E Poitras, Sholom Wacholder, Hormuzd A Katki.   

Abstract

Estimates of absolute risks and risk differences are necessary for evaluating the clinical and population impact of biomedical research findings. We have developed a linear-expit regression model (LEXPIT) to incorporate linear and nonlinear risk effects to estimate absolute risk from studies of a binary outcome. The LEXPIT is a generalization of both the binomial linear and logistic regression models. The coefficients of the LEXPIT linear terms estimate adjusted risk differences, whereas the exponentiated nonlinear terms estimate residual odds ratios. The LEXPIT could be particularly useful for epidemiological studies of risk association, where adjustment for multiple confounding variables is common. We present a constrained maximum likelihood estimation algorithm that ensures the feasibility of risk estimates of the LEXPIT model and describe procedures for defining the feasible region of the parameter space, judging convergence, and evaluating boundary cases. Simulations demonstrate that the methodology is computationally robust and yields feasible, consistent estimators. We applied the LEXPIT model to estimate the absolute 5-year risk of cervical precancer or cancer associated with different Pap and human papillomavirus test results in 167,171 women undergoing screening at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The LEXPIT model found an increased risk due to abnormal Pap test in human papillomavirus-negative that was not detected with logistic regression. Our R package blm provides free and easy-to-use software for fitting the LEXPIT model. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22865328      PMCID: PMC3982929          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  19 in total

1.  What's the relative risk? A method to directly estimate risk ratios in cohort studies of common outcomes.

Authors:  Anthony S Robbins; Susan Y Chao; Vincent P Fonseca
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.797

2.  Extensions and applications of the Cox-Aalen survival model.

Authors:  Thomas H Scheike; Mei-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Building a disease risk model of osteoporosis based on traditional Chinese medicine symptoms and western medicine risk factors.

Authors:  X H Zhou; S L Li; F Tian; B J Cai; Y M Xie; Y Pei; S Kang; M Fan; J P Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A deficiency of the odds ratio as a measure of effect size.

Authors:  Robert G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Effect modification and the limits of biological inference from epidemiologic data.

Authors:  W D Thompson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses?

Authors:  M Nurminen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect.

Authors:  R J Cook; D L Sackett
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-02-18

8.  Linear or Nonlinear? Automatic Structure Discovery for Partially Linear Models.

Authors:  Hao Helen Zhang; Guang Cheng; Yufeng Liu
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Risk Prediction for Prostate Cancer Recurrence Through Regularized Estimation with Simultaneous Adjustment for Nonlinear Clinical Effects.

Authors:  Qi Long; Matthias Chung; Carlos S Moreno; Brent A Johnson
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.083

10.  Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Pontus Naucler; Walter Ryd; Sven Törnberg; Anders Strand; Göran Wadell; Kristina Elfgren; Thomas Rådberg; Björn Strander; Ola Forslund; Bengt-Göran Hansson; Björn Hagmar; Bo Johansson; Eva Rylander; Joakim Dillner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  11 in total

1.  Invited commentary: How big is that interaction (in my community)--and in which direction?

Authors:  Orestis A Panagiotou; Sholom Wacholder
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Poor glycaemic control and its metabolic and demographic risk factors in a Malaysian community-based study.

Authors:  Daniel D Reidpath; Ireneous Soyiri; Nowrozy K Jahan; Devi Mohan; Badariah Ahmad; Mohtar Pungut Ahmad; Zaid Bin Kassim; Pascale Allotey
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  Do sex hormones or hormone therapy modify the relation of n-3 fatty acids with incident depressive symptoms in postmenopausal women? The MESA Study.

Authors:  Laura A Colangelo; Pamela Ouyang; Sherita Hill Golden; Moyses Szklo; Susan M Gapstur; Dhananjay Vaidya; Kiang Liu
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 4.905

4.  Commentary: On Effect Measures, Heterogeneity, and the Laws of Nature.

Authors:  Orestis A Panagiotou; Thomas A Trikalinos
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Time to smoke first morning cigarette and lung cancer in a case-control study.

Authors:  Fangyi Gu; Sholom Wacholder; Stephanie Kovalchik; Orestis A Panagiotou; Carolyn Reyes-Guzman; Neal D Freedman; Sara De Matteis; Dario Consonni; Pier Alberto Bertazzi; Andrew W Bergen; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil E Caporaso
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Almost efficient estimation of relative risk regression.

Authors:  Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Stuart R Lipsitz; Alex Arriaga; Debajyoti Sinha; Caprice Greenberg; Atul A Gawande
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 7.  Considerations when assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  Catherine R Lesko; Nicholas C Henderson; Ravi Varadhan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  A regression model for risk difference estimation in population-based case-control studies clarifies gender differences in lung cancer risk of smokers and never smokers.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kovalchik; Sara De Matteis; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil E Caporaso; Ravi Varadhan; Dario Consonni; Andrew W Bergen; Hormuzd A Katki; Sholom Wacholder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Statistical analysis plan for the POLAR-RCT: The Prophylactic hypOthermia trial to Lessen trAumatic bRain injury-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey Presneill; Dashiell Gantner; Alistair Nichol; Colin McArthur; Andrew Forbes; Jessica Kasza; Tony Trapani; Lynnette Murray; Stephen Bernard; Peter Cameron; Gilles Capellier; Olivier Huet; Lynette Newby; Stephen Rashford; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Tony Smith; Michael Stephenson; Dinesh Varma; Shirley Vallance; Tony Walker; Steve Webb; D James Cooper
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Integration of postpartum healthcare services for HIV-infected women and their infants in South Africa: A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Landon Myer; Tamsin K Phillips; Allison Zerbe; Kirsty Brittain; Maia Lesosky; Nei-Yuan Hsiao; Robert H Remien; Claude A Mellins; James A McIntyre; Elaine J Abrams
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.