Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many articles provide only odds ratios (OR) and not relative risks (RR) as the effect estimate. For a variety of important reasons, multiple logistic regression used to adjust for confounders routinely provides only the adjusted OR (ORadj). However, from the clinician's perspective, the ORadj is only easily interpretable when it approximates the adjusted RR (RRadj). In general, the relationship between the OR and RR (adjusted or non-adjusted) is dependent on prevalence of disease in the control group (Po) and has always been presented as non-linear. Therefore, it is difficult for the clinician to convert the OR to RR when reading published data. A formula was proposed by Zhang and Yu, but the relationship remains non-linear. Therefore, the objective of this project is to develop a simple formula that can convert OR to RR without the use of computer. METHODS: Algebraic manipulation. RESULTS: Through algebraic manipulation, we show that although the OR and RR relationship is non-linear over the range Po, the ratio OR/RR has a linear relationship with Po with a slope of “OR-1”: OR/RR = (OR-1)*Po + 1. Previous problems with confidence intervals noted with the old version of the formula remain (i.e. they are too narrow under some conditions) and the result should be interpreted with this limitation. Relationships between ORadj and risk difference or number needed to treat remain curvilinear but some overall approximations can be made. CONCLUSIONS: A simple relationship exists that allows readers to easily convert ORadj to RRadj. Limitations of the approach remain but appear to be less restrictive than the limitations of not converting ORadj to RRadj.Figure
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".