Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41562980›Full record

ArticleMethods and protocols2025

Quantile Regression in Epidemiology: Capturing Heterogeneity Beyond the Mean.

Charalambos Gnardellis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods and protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Charalambos GnardellisDepartment of Fisheries and Aquaculture, School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Patras, 30200 Messolonghi, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8862-7868

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ordinary linear regression is the most common approach for modeling relationships between continuous outcomes and explanatory variables in epidemiological research. However, this method relies on restrictive assumptions-normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity-that are often violated in real-world biomedical data. When these assumptions fail, mean-based estimates may obscure important heterogeneity across the outcome distribution. This study aims to illustrate the methodological and interpretive advantages of quantile regression over ordinary regression in the analysis of epidemiological data. Secondary data were derived from a cross-sectional study of 1415 healthy Greek adults aged 25-82 years. Body mass index (BMI) served as the outcome variable, while sex, age, physical activity, dieting status, and daily energy intake were considered predictors. Both ordinary and quantile regression models were applied to estimate associations between BMI and its determinants across the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th quantiles. Ordinary regression identified positive associations of BMI with age and energy intake and a negative association with physical activity. Quantile regression revealed that these relationships were not constant across the BMI distribution. The inverse association with physical activity intensified at higher quantiles, and the gender effect reversed direction at the upper tail, suggesting heterogeneity was not captured by mean-based models. Quantile regression provides a distribution-sensitive alternative to ordinary regression, offering insight into covariate effects across different points of the outcome distribution and serving as both a robust analytical tool and an educational framework for applied epidemiological research.

Indexed as

body mass indexepidemiological methodsheteroscedasticitymedian regressionordinary linear regressionpopulation healthquantile regressionstatistical modeling

Identifiers

PMID41562980
PMCPMC12821555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.