ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Regression Not-to-the-Mean: An Oddity of Regression, Illustrated With the Risk of Overdose Deaths.
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
Recent works in econometrics have shown that there can be issues with applying a constant treatment effect model in longitudinal settings with staggered treatment and heterogeneous treatment effects. We focus on the issue that the estimated constant treatment effect may be a weighted average, with some negative weights, of treatment effects that are heterogeneous across treatment durations. When this issue arises, the estimated constant treatment effect and estimated heterogeneous treatment effects may result in conflicting results. Through the example of estimating the effect of drug-induced homicide (DIH) prosecutions reported by media on unintentional drug-overdose deaths in the United States, we illustrate how the negative weighting issue can lead to conflicting results in practice. Moreover, although research has shown that the negative weight issue may arise in linear regression models, we show this issue may also arise in logistic regression models. Using a linear link, we estimated a constant treatment effect risk ratio of 0.977 (95% CI: [0.866, 1.101]) and an average risk ratio of 0.728 (range: 0.507-0.979) over different treatment durations. Using a logistic link, we estimated a constant treatment risk ratio effect of 1.064 (95% CI: [0.972, 1.165]) and an average risk ratio of 0.739 (range: 0.538-1.008) over different treatment durations. Under both models, the estimated constant treatment effect is either smaller in magnitude or has a different sign than almost all estimated heterogeneous treatment effects, suggesting a negative weighting issue is present. Our results suggest additional care is needed when applying constant treatment effect models in longitudinal settings.
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.