Literature DB >> 29020135

Separation in Logistic Regression: Causes, Consequences, and Control.

Mohammad Ali Mansournia1,1, Angelika Geroldinger2,2, Sander Greenland3,4,3,4, Georg Heinze2,2.   

Abstract

Separation is encountered in regression models with a discrete outcome (such as logistic regression) where the covariates perfectly predict the outcome. It is most frequent under the same conditions that lead to small-sample and sparse-data bias, such as presence of a rare outcome, rare exposures, highly correlated covariates, or covariates with strong effects. In theory, separation will produce infinite estimates for some coefficients. In practice, however, separation may be unnoticed or mishandled because of software limits in recognizing and handling the problem and in notifying the user. We discuss causes of separation in logistic regression and describe how common software packages deal with it. We then describe methods that remove separation, focusing on the same penalized-likelihood techniques used to address more general sparse-data problems. These methods improve accuracy, avoid software problems, and allow interpretation as Bayesian analyses with weakly informative priors. We discuss likelihood penalties, including some that can be implemented easily with any software package, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. We provide an illustration of ideas and methods using data from a case-control study of contraceptive practices and urinary tract infection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29020135     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  35 in total

1.  Comment on: Prevalence and correlates of diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia in a long-stay inpatient schizophrenia population in Singapore.

Authors:  Mustafa Afifi
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  Authors' reply.

Authors:  Saleha Shafie; Siau Pheng Lee; Samantha Bee Cheng Ong; Peizhi Wang; Esmond Seow; Hui Lin Ong; Siow Ann Chong; Mythily Subramaniam
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.858

3.  Evaluating large-scale propensity score performance through real-world and synthetic data experiments.

Authors:  Yuxi Tian; Martijn J Schuemie; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Theory and methodology: essential tools that can become dangerous belief systems.

Authors:  Sander Greenland; Nicholas Patrick Jewell; Mohammad Ali Mansournia
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Keep calm and carry on testing: a substantive reanalysis and critique of 'what is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis'.

Authors:  Jacob John Capin; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; May Arna Risberg; Hege Grindem
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 13.800

6.  Using "Markers of Harm" to Track Risky Gambling in Two Cohorts of Online Sports Bettors.

Authors:  William H B McAuliffe; Eric R Louderback; Timothy C Edson; Debi A LaPlante; Sarah E Nelson
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2022-01-24

7.  Case-control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Nicholas Patrick Jewell; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 12.434

8.  A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Gary S Collins; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Maryam Nazemipour; Nicholas P Jewell; Douglas G Altman; Michael J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 18.473

9.  Parametric-Regression-Based Causal Mediation Analysis of Binary Outcomes and Binary Mediators: Moving Beyond the Rareness or Commonness of the Outcome.

Authors:  Mariia Samoilenko; Geneviève Lefebvre
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 5.363

10.  Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity.

Authors:  John L Moran; John D Santamaria; Graeme J Duke
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.