逻辑回归:估计二元健康结果关联措施的局限性。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Acta medica portuguesa Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.20344/amp.21435
Lara Pinheiro-Guedes, Clarisse Martinho, Maria Rosário O Martins
{"title":"逻辑回归:估计二元健康结果关联措施的局限性。","authors":"Lara Pinheiro-Guedes, Clarisse Martinho, Maria Rosário O Martins","doi":"10.20344/amp.21435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7059,"journal":{"name":"Acta medica portuguesa","volume":"37 10","pages":"697-705"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Logistic Regression: Limitations in the Estimation of Measures of Association with Binary Health Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Lara Pinheiro-Guedes, Clarisse Martinho, Maria Rosário O Martins\",\"doi\":\"10.20344/amp.21435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta medica portuguesa\",\"volume\":\"37 10\",\"pages\":\"697-705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta medica portuguesa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.21435\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta medica portuguesa","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.21435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言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元结果之间的关联程度。然而,当结果频繁出现(> 10%)时,模型估计的相对风险和流行率可能会出现偏差。尽管有多种替代方法,但许多人仍然依赖于这些模型,而且尚未达成共识。我们的目的是在涉及频繁二元结果的横断面研究中,比较逻辑回归模型、对数二项式回归模型和稳健泊松回归模型的估计值和拟合优度: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情况的地方性研究。通过逻辑回归得出了患病率比(OR),通过对数二项式和稳健泊松回归模型得出了患病率比(PR)。此外,还计算了置信区间(CI)、置信区间范围和标准误差(SE),并酌情通过阿凯克信息准则(AIC)计算了模型的相对拟合优度:在研究 1 中,OR(95% CI)为 1.015(0.970 - 1.063),而通过稳健泊松模式得到的 PR(95% CI)为 1.012(0.979 - 1.045)。在这项研究中,对数二叉回归模型没有收敛。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)。在这两项研究中,OR 的 95% CI、其范围和 SE 均高于 PR。然而,在研究 2 中,逻辑回归模型的 AIC 值较低:几率高估了 PR,其 95% CI 更宽,SE 更高。与之前的研究一致,随着研究结果越来越普遍,高估的程度也越来越大。在研究 2 中,逻辑回归是拟合效果最好的模型,这说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。默认采用逻辑回归模型可能会导致误读。在二元结果频繁出现的横断面研究中,稳健的泊松模型是可行的替代方案,可避免对数二叉模型的不收敛性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Logistic Regression: Limitations in the Estimation of Measures of Association with Binary Health Outcomes.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta medica portuguesa
Acta medica portuguesa MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
256
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of Acta Médica Portuguesa is to publish original research and review articles in biomedical areas of the highest standard, covering several domains of medical knowledge, with the purpose to help doctors improve medical care. In order to accomplish these aims, Acta Médica Portuguesa publishes original articles, review articles, case reports and editorials, among others, with a focus on clinical, scientific, social, political and economic factors affecting health. Acta Médica Portuguesa will be happy to consider manuscripts for publication from authors anywhere in the world.
期刊最新文献
[Disease Caused by Filoviruses: An Update]. Iron Skin Staining: A Rare but Permanent Complication Following IV Iron Infusion. [Anxiety and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in Elite Athletes]. Translation and Adaptation of the STOPP/START Criteria Version 3 for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older People to European Portuguese: A Study Protocol. Purple Urine Bag Syndrome: Reporting a Case of Rare Incidence in Portugal.
×
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