Interpreting model coefficients when the true model form is unknown.

G Maldonado; S Greenland

doi:10.1097/00001648-199307000-00006

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8347741

Interpreting model coefficients when the true model form is unknown.

G Maldonado·S Greenland

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we critically examine mathematical modeling. We outline the major assumptions required by modeling methods used in epidemiology and discuss in detail one fundamental assumption that is usually violated in epidemiologic studies: the assumption that the structural model form is correctly specified. We apply concepts from the econometrics literature to examine how epidemiologic inference may be affected when the structural model form is incorrectly specified. Because the structural model is almost always misspecified in practice, tests and confidence intervals for model coefficients do not refer to "true population parameters" in the ordinary sense. Rather, these statistics concern parameters that depend on features of study design, as well as the effects under study. In cohort studies analyzed with multiplicative rate models, model parameters are interpretable as approximations to log standardized rate ratios; unfortunately, such interpretations are not as accurate for other models and designs. We therefore conclude that model coefficients can serve as reasonable effect summaries in some, but not all, situations.

Explore related subjects

Bias Case-Control Studies Cohort Studies Epidemiologic Methods Humans Mathematics Models, Statistical Nickel Occupational Diseases Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

G Maldonado, S Greenland. 1993. Interpreting model coefficients when the true model form is unknown.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199307000-00006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed2007

A residuals-based transition model for longitudinal analysis with estimation in the presence of missing data.

We propose a transition model for analysing data from complex longitudinal studies. Because missing values are practically unavoidable in large longitudinal studies, we also present a two-stage imputation method for handling general patterns of missing values on both the outcome and the covariates by combining multiple imputation with stochastic regression imputation. Our model is a time-varying auto-regression on the past innovations (residuals), and it can be used in cases where general dynamics must be taken into account, and where the model selection is important. The entire estimation process was carried out using available procedures in statistical packages such as SAS and S-PLUS. To illustrate the viability of the proposed model and the two-stage imputation method, we analyse data collected in an epidemiological study that focused on various factors relating to childhood growth. Finally, we present a simulation study to investigate the behaviour of our two-stage imputation procedure.

Bias↗

PubMed2007

HIV viral dynamic models with dropouts and missing covariates.

In recent years HIV viral dynamic models have received great attention in AIDS studies. Often, subjects in these studies may drop out for various reasons such as drug intolerance or drug resistance, and covariates may also contain missing data. Statistical analyses ignoring informative dropouts and missing covariates may lead to misleading results. We consider appropriate methods for HIV viral dynamic models with informative dropouts and missing covariates and evaluate these methods via simulations. A real data set is analysed, and the results show that the initial viral decay rate, which may reflect the efficacy of the anti-HIV treatment, may be over-estimated if dropout patients are ignored. We also find that the current or immediate previous viral load values may be most predictive for patients' dropout. These results may be important for HIV/AIDS studies.

Bias↗