ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Caveats on Using Firth's Penalization in the Model-Based Regression Standardization for Rare Diseases.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Model-based regression standardization, also known as the parametric g-formula, is widely used to estimate marginal effect measures. However, in rare disease settings, the small number of observed events relative to the number of covariates can lead to (quasi-)complete separation, resulting in non-convergent estimates in the regression models. Firth's penalized likelihood estimates are a common solution to this issue, ensuring finite parameter estimates even for separated data. While effective for estimating regression coefficients, Firth's method introduces bias into model-based regression standardization because of its tendency to shrink the predicted probabilities to 0.5, leading to discrepancies between the predicted and observed event rates. We examined the implications of applying Firth's method to model-based regression standardization, illustrating its potential bias through an empirical study on surgical site infections (SSI) in orthopedic surgeries. We also proposed two ad hoc corrections (i.e., Firth's logistic regression with intercept correction and added covariate) to mitigate this bias and evaluated these methods via simulation studies, comparing them with propensity score-based approaches. Finally, we applied the proposed method to assess the association between SSI, a rare disease, and smoking status in a clinical database of orthopedic surgeries.
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.