Measuring additive interaction using odds ratios.

Linda Kalilani, Julius Atashili
{"title":"Measuring additive interaction using odds ratios.","authors":"Linda Kalilani,&nbsp;Julius Atashili","doi":"10.1186/1742-5573-3-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":87082,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","volume":"3 ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1742-5573-3-5","citationCount":"140","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-3-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 140

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用优势比测量加性相互作用。
在加法尺度上测量的相互作用被认为比在乘法尺度上测量的相互作用更好地与生物相互作用相关。在累加尺度上的相互作用的度量已经用风险比率发展出来。然而,在使用优势比作为唯一效应度量的研究中,通常通过直接用优势比代替风险比来计算这些相加性相互作用度量。然而,在用风险比推导出的公式中,用优势比代替风险比来评估加性相互作用可能是错误的。在本文中,我们评估了三种附加相互作用的测量方法——相互作用对比度(ICR)、相互作用归因比例(AP)和协同作用指数(S),使用优势比和使用风险比来估计,随着源人群中感兴趣的结果发生率的增加和/或随着相互作用程度的增加而差异的程度。我们的分析表明,两者之间的差异取决于所使用的相互作用的度量、存在的相互作用的类型和结果的基线发生率。在计算加性相互作用的度量时,用优势比代替风险比可能会导致误导性的结论。在这三种措施中,AP似乎对这种直接替代最有力。提出了利用地层特定比值和比值比精确计算加性相互作用测度的公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extending the sufficient component cause model to describe the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). Use of the integrated health interview series: trends in medical provider utilization (1972-2008). Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology. The use of complete-case and multiple imputation-based analyses in molecular epidemiology studies that assess interaction effects. Attributing the burden of cancer at work: three areas of concern when examining the example of shift-work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1