Revisiting Bias in Odds Ratios
Foppa, I. M.; Dahlgren, F. S.
Show abstract
Ratio measures of effect, such as the odds ratio (OR), are consistent, but the presumption of their unbiasedness is founded on a false premise: The equality of the expected value of a ratio and the ratio of expected values. We show that the invalidity of this assumptions is an important source of empirical bias in ratio measures of effect, which is due to properties of the expectation of ratios of count random variables. We investigate ORs (unconfounded, no effect modification), proposing a correction that leads to "almost unbiased" estimates. We also explore ORs with covariates. We find substantial bias in OR estimates for smaller sample sizes, which can be corrected by the proposed method. Bias correction is more elusive for adjusted analyses. The notion of unbiasedness of OR for the effect of interest for smaller sample sizes is challenged.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 95%
- Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for Two-Stream Capture-Recapture Methods in Disease Surveillance 93%
- Causal Estimands for Infectious Disease Count Outcomes to Investigate the Public Health Impact of Interventions 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 95%
- Efficient Estimation of Indirect Effects in Case-Control Studies Using a Unified Likelihood Framework 93%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 93%
- Re-expressing coefficients from regression models for inclusion in a meta-analysis 93%
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Two-Stage Multivariate Mendelian Randomization on Multiple Outcomes with Mixed Distributions 94%
- Adjusting for time of infection or positive test when estimating the risk of a post-infection outcome in an epidemic 93%
- Causal Mediation Analysis with Multiple Causally Ordered and Non-ordered Mediators based on Summarized Genetic Data 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.