ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2012
Model averaging in the analysis of leukemia mortality among Japanese A-bomb survivors.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Projected cancer risks potentially related to past, current, and future practices in paediatric CT in the United Kingdom, 1990-2020.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Model Averaging for Improving Inference from Causal Diagrams.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015Article
- Potential impacts of radon, terrestrial gamma and cosmic rays on childhood leukemia in France: a quantitative risk assessment.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2013Article
- Independent analysis of the radiation risk for leukaemia in children and adults with mortality data (1950-2003) of Japanese A-bomb survivors.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2013Article
- Dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemiological studies often include numerous covariates, with a variety of possible approaches to control for confounding of the association of primary interest, as well as a variety of possible models for the exposure-response association of interest. Walsh and Kaiser (Radiat Environ Biophys 50:21-35, 2011) advocate a weighted averaging of the models, where the weights are a function of overall model goodness of fit and degrees of freedom. They apply this method to analyses of radiation-leukemia mortality associations among Japanese A-bomb survivors. We caution against such an approach, noting that the proposed model averaging approach prioritizes the inclusion of covariates that are strong predictors of the outcome, but which may be irrelevant as confounders of the association of interest, and penalizes adjustment for covariates that are confounders of the association of interest, but may contribute little to overall model goodness of fit. We offer a simple illustration of how this approach can lead to biased results. The proposed model averaging approach may also be suboptimal as way to handle competing model forms for an exposure-response association of interest, given adjustment for the same set of confounders; alternative approaches, such as hierarchical regression, may provide a more useful way to stabilize risk estimates in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22228541What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.