Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22228541›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2012

Model averaging in the analysis of leukemia mortality among Japanese A-bomb survivors.

David B Richardson, Stephen R Cole

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Model Averaging for Improving Inference from Causal Diagrams.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David B RichardsonDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. david.richardson@unc.edu
Stephen R Cole

Funding

Cohort analysis methods for occupational cancer studiesR01CA117841 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID B · 2007 to 2012
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01-CA117841
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, BiologicalNuclear WeaponsFemaleHumansLeukemiaMaleNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedSurvivors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.