Suppr超能文献

Logistic Regression:在估计与二元健康结果相关的关联度量方面的局限性。

Logistic Regression: Limitations in the Estimation of Measures of Association with Binary Health Outcomes.

机构信息

Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Lisbon; Public Health Unit. Unidade Local de Saúde do Tâmega e Sousa. Marco de Canaveses. Portugal.

Public Health Unit. Unidade Local de Saúde do Tâmega e Sousa. Marco de Canaveses. Portugal.

出版信息

Acta Med Port. 2024 Oct 1;37(10):697-705. doi: 10.20344/amp.21435.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Logistic regression models are frequently used to estimate measures of association between an exposure, health determinant or intervention, and a binary outcome. However, when the outcome is frequent (> 10%), model estimates for relative risks and prevalence ratios might be biased. Despite the availability of several alternatives, many still rely on these models, and a consensus is yet to be reached. We aimed to compare the estimation and goodness-of-fit of logistic, log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models, in cross-sectional studies involving frequent binary outcomes.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 was a nationally representative study on the impact of air pollution on mental health. Study 2 was a local study on immigrants' access to urgent healthcare services. Odds ratios (OR) were obtained through logistic regression, and prevalence ratios (PR) through log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models. Confidence intervals (CI), their ranges, and standard-errors (SE) were also computed, along with models' relative goodness-of-fit through Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), when applicable.

RESULTS

In Study 1, the OR (95% CI) was 1.015 (0.970 - 1.063), while the PR (95% CI) obtained through the robust Poisson mode was 1.012 (0.979 - 1.045). The log-binomial regression model did not converge in this study. In Study 2, the OR (95% CI) was 1.584 (1.026 - 2.446), the PR (95% CI) for the log-binomial model was 1.217 (0.978 - 1.515), and 1.130 (1.013 - 1.261) for the robust Poisson model. The 95% CI, their ranges, and the SE of the OR were higher than those of the PR, in both studies. However, in Study 2, the AIC value was lower for the logistic regression model.

CONCLUSION

The odds ratio overestimated PR with wider 95% CI and higher SE. The overestimation was greater as the outcome of the study became more prevalent, in line with previous studies. In Study 2, the logistic regression was the model with the best fit, illustrating the need to consider multiple criteria when selecting the most appropriate statistical model for each study. Employing logistic regression models by default might lead to misinterpretations. Robust Poisson models are viable alternatives in cross-sectional studies with frequent binary outcomes, avoiding the non-convergence of log-binomial models.

摘要

简介

逻辑回归模型常用于估计暴露、健康决定因素或干预措施与二项结局之间的关联程度。然而,当结局较为常见(>10%)时,相对风险和患病率比的模型估计可能存在偏差。尽管有多种替代方法,但许多人仍然依赖这些模型,且尚未达成共识。我们旨在比较逻辑回归、对数二项式回归和稳健泊松回归模型在涉及常见二项结局的横断面研究中的估计和拟合优度。

方法

进行了两项横断面研究。研究 1 是一项关于空气污染对心理健康影响的全国代表性研究。研究 2 是一项关于移民获得紧急医疗服务机会的本地研究。通过逻辑回归获得比值比(OR),通过对数二项式和稳健泊松回归模型获得患病率比(PR)。还计算了置信区间(CI)、范围和标准误差(SE),以及适用时通过赤池信息量准则(AIC)计算模型的相对拟合优度。

结果

在研究 1 中,OR(95%CI)为 1.015(0.970-1.063),而通过稳健泊松模型获得的 PR(95%CI)为 1.012(0.979-1.045)。对数二项式回归模型在该研究中未收敛。在研究 2 中,OR(95%CI)为 1.584(1.026-2.446),对数二项式模型的 PR(95%CI)为 1.217(0.978-1.515),稳健泊松模型的 PR 为 1.130(1.013-1.261)。在两项研究中,OR 的 95%CI、范围和 SE 均高于 PR。然而,在研究 2 中,逻辑回归模型的 AIC 值较低。

结论

OR 高估了 PR,且其 95%CI 更宽,SE 更高。随着研究结局变得更加常见,高估程度更大,这与之前的研究一致。在研究 2 中,逻辑回归模型是拟合度最好的模型,这表明在为每项研究选择最合适的统计模型时,需要考虑多个标准。默认使用逻辑回归模型可能会导致误解。稳健泊松模型是常见二项结局横断面研究中的可行替代方法,可避免对数二项式模型的不收敛。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验