ArticlePeerJ2024
Bayesian estimation of the measurement of interactions in epidemiological studies.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Interaction identification is important in epidemiological studies and can be detected by including a product term in the model. However, as Rothman noted, a product term in exponential models may be regarded as multiplicative rather than additive to better reflect biological interactions. Currently, the additive interaction is largely measured by the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI), the attributable proportion due to interaction (AP), and the synergy index (S), and confidence intervals are developed via frequentist approaches. However, few studies have focused on the same issue from a Bayesian perspective. The present study aims to provide a Bayesian view of the estimation and credible intervals of the additive interaction measures. Methods: Bayesian logistic regression was employed, and estimates and credible intervals were calculated from posterior samples of the RERI, AP and S. Since Bayesian inference depends only on posterior samples, it is very easy to apply this method to preventive factors. The validity of the proposed method was verified by comparing the Bayesian method with the delta and bootstrap approaches in simulation studies with example data. Results: In all the simulation studies, the Bayesian estimates were very close to the corresponding true values. Due to the skewness of the interaction measures, compared with the confidence intervals of the delta method, the credible intervals of the Bayesian approach were more balanced and matched the nominal 95% level. Compared with the bootstrap method, the Bayesian method appeared to be a competitive alternative and fared better when small sample sizes were used. Conclusions: The proposed Bayesian method is a competitive alternative to other methods. This approach can assist epidemiologists in detecting additive-scale interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.