Hopp til innhold

Get alerts of updates about «CeFH Biostatistical seminar: Anders Huitfeld "The choice of effect measure for binary outcomes: Introducing counterfactual outcome state transition parameters"»

How often would you like to receive alerts from fhi.no? (This affects all your alerts)

The email address you register will only be used to send you these alerts. You can cancel your alerts and delete your email address at any time by following the link in the alerts you receive.
Read more about the privacy policy for fhi.no

You have subscribed to alerts about:

  • CeFH Biostatistical seminar: Anders Huitfeld "The choice of effect measure for binary outcomes: Introducing counterfactual outcome state transition parameters"

Event

CeFH Biostatistical seminar: Anders Huitfeld "The choice of effect measure for binary outcomes: Introducing counterfactual outcome state transition parameters"

Presentation by Anders Huitfeld, Norwegian Institute of Public Health

Presentation by Anders Huitfeld, Norwegian Institute of Public Health


12. Dec | 2018

13:00-14:00
Seminar
Room 234 in building C, Sandakerveien 24C

About the speaker

Anders Huitfeld is a researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. He has graduated from Harvard in Epidemiology and he obtain his PhD at Harvard under the supervision of Miguel A. Hernan, James M. Robins and Mette Kalager.

About the presentation

Standard measures of effect, including the risk ratio, the odds ratio, and the risk difference, are associated with a number of well-described shortcomings, and no consensus exists about the conditions under which investigators should choose one effect measure over another. In this paper, we introduce a new framework for reasoning about choice of effect measure by linking two separate versions of the risk ratio to a counterfactual causal model. In our approach, effects are defined in terms of "counterfactual outcome state transition parameters", that is, the proportion of those individuals who would not have been a case by the end of follow-up if untreated, who would have responded to treatment by becoming a case; and the proportion of those individuals who would have become a case by the end of follow-up if untreated who would have responded to treatment by not becoming a case. Although counterfactual outcome state transition parameters are generally not identified from the data without strong monotonicity assumptions, we show that when they stay constant between populations, there are important implications for model specification, meta-analysis, and research generalization.