Literature DB >> 34001751

Decreased Susceptibility of Marginal Odds Ratios to Finite-sample Bias.

Rachael K Ross1, Stephen R Cole, David B Richardson.   

Abstract

Parameters representing adjusted treatment effects may be defined marginally or conditionally on covariates. The choice between a marginal or covariate-conditional parameter should be driven by the study question. However, an unappreciated benefit of marginal estimators is a reduction in susceptibility to finite-sample bias relative to the unpenalized maximum likelihood estimator of the covariate-conditional odds ratio (OR). Using simulation, we compare the finite-sample bias of different marginal and conditional estimators of the OR. We simulated a logistic model to have 15 events per parameter and two events per parameter. We estimated the covariate-conditional OR by maximum likelihood with and without Firth's penalization. We used three estimators of the marginal OR: g-computation, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting. At 15 events per parameter, as expected, all estimators were effectively unbiased. At two events per parameter, the unpenalized covariate-conditional estimator was notably biased but penalized covariate-conditional and marginal estimators exhibited minimal bias.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34001751      PMCID: PMC8338772          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001370

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.860


  24 in total

1.  Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption.

Authors:  Maya L Petersen; Kristin E Porter; Susan Gruber; Yue Wang; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression.

Authors:  Eric Vittinghoff; Charles E McCulloch
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-12-20       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Marginal Structural Cox Models with Case-Cohort Sampling.

Authors:  Hana Lee; Michael G Hudgens; Jianwen Cai; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.261

5.  Implementation of G-computation on a simulated data set: demonstration of a causal inference technique.

Authors:  Jonathan M Snowden; Sherri Rose; Kathleen M Mortimer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the rate ratio or rate difference.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain sight.

Authors:  Sander Greenland; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-04-27

8.  Bias control in the analysis of case-control studies with incidence density sampling.

Authors:  Yin Bun Cheung; Xiangmei Ma; K F Lam; Jialiang Li; Paul Milligan
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods.

Authors:  Tim P Morris; Ian R White; Michael J Crowther
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.497

View more
  1 in total

1.  Controversy and Debate : Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 4 :Odds Ratios are far from "portable" - A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mengli Xiao; Haitao Chu; Stephen R Cole; Yong Chen; Richard F MacLehose; David B Richardson; Sander Greenland
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.437

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.