MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399851207 · doi:10.7759/cureus.62769

Translating Risk Ratios, Baseline Incidence, and Proportions Diseased to Correlations and Chi-Squared Statistics: Simulation Epidemiology

2024· article· en· W4399851207 on OpenAlexaff
Yi‐Sheng Chao, Chao-Jung Wu, Yi-Chun Lai, Hui‐Ting Hsu, Yen-Po Cheng, Hsing‐Chien Wu, Shih-Yu Huang, Wei‐Chih Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatisticsEpidemiologyIncidence (geometry)DemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In a population, when a disease is causing a symptom, the overall symptom incidence can be determined by proportions diseased, baseline symptom incidence, and risk ratios of developing the symptom due to the disease. There are various measures of association, including risk ratios. How risk ratios are linked to other measures of association, such as correlation coefficients and chi-squared statistics, has not been explicitly discussed. This study aims to demonstrate their connection via equations and simulations, assuming one disease causes symptoms. Methods The equations for correlation coefficients and chi-square statistics were rewritten using epidemiological measures: proportions diseased, baseline symptom incidence, and risk ratios. Simulations were conducted to test the accuracy of the equations. The baseline symptom incidence and the proportions diseased were assumed to be 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, or 0.8. The risk ratios were assumed to be 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 25. Another disease that correlates with this disease was created (correlation = 0, 0.3, or 0.7). For each combination of symptom incidence, proportions diseased, risk ratios, and between-disease correlations, 10,000 subjects were simulated. The correlation coefficients and chi-squared statistics were approximated with epidemiologic measures and their interaction terms. R-squared was used to assess the importance of the epidemiologic measures. Results In the simulations, the overall symptom incidence, correlation coefficients, and chi-squared statistics between the disease and symptoms could be fully explained by the epidemiologic measures in the equations (R-squared = 1). When approximating correlation coefficients and chi-squared statistics with individual measures or their interaction terms, the importance of these measures depended on whether the at-risk incidence reached 1 or not. The numbers in the four cells in the contingency table predicted correlation coefficients, or chi-squared statistics, with different R-squared. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study to translate the three epidemiologic measures (risk ratios, baseline symptom incidence, and proportions diseased) into correlation coefficients and chi-squared statistics. However, chi-squared statistics also depend on sample sizes. This study also provides a platform for developing teaching cases for students to investigate the causal relationship between diseases and symptoms or exposure and outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.438
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207