首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Epidemiologic Perspectives Innovations : EP+I >Measuring additive interaction using odds ratios
【2h】

Measuring additive interaction using odds ratios

机译:使用优势比测量加性相互作用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Interaction measured on the additive scale has been argued to be better correlated with biologic interaction than when measured on the multiplicative scale. Measures of interaction on the additive scale have been developed using risk ratios. However, in studies that use odds ratios as the sole measure of effect, the calculation of these measures of additive interaction is usually performed by directly substituting odds ratios for risk ratios. Yet assessing additive interaction based on replacing risk ratios by odds ratios in formulas that were derived using the former may be erroneous. In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which three measures of additive interaction – the interaction contrast ratio (ICR), the attributable proportion due to interaction (AP), and the synergy index (S), estimated using odds ratios versus using risk ratios differ as the incidence of the outcome of interest increases in the source population and/or as the magnitude of interaction increases. Our analysis shows that the difference between the two depends on the measure of interaction used, the type of interaction present, and the baseline incidence of the outcome. Substituting odds ratios for risk ratios, when calculating measures of additive interaction, may result in misleading conclusions. Of the three measures, AP appears to be the most robust to this direct substitution. Formulas that use stratum specific odds and odds ratios to accurately calculate measures of additive interaction are presented.
机译:据认为,与加性尺度相比,加性尺度的相互作用与生物相互作用的相关性更好。已经使用风险比率开发了添加剂规模上的相互作用的度量。但是,在使用比值比作为效果的唯一度量的研究中,通常通过将比值比直接替换为风险比来执行这些加性相互作用度量的计算。然而,在使用前者得出的公式中,用风险比替换为比值来评估加性相互作用可能是错误的。在本文中,我们使用比值比与风险比估算了三种加性相互作用的量度:相互作用对比率(ICR),归因于相互作用的比例(AP)和协同指数(S)。来源群体中感兴趣的结果的发生率增加和/或交互作用的程度增加,结果会有所不同。我们的分析表明,两者之间的差异取决于所使用的交互作用的度量,当前交互作用的类型以及结果的基线发生率。在计算加性相互作用的度量时,用比值比代替风险比可能会导致误导性结论。在这三种措施中,AP似乎对这种直接替代最有力。提出了使用特定于层的比值和比值比来精确计算加性相互作用度量的公式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号