This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| duke_notes [2025/11/17 20:32] – admin | duke_notes [2025/11/17 21:46] (current) – admin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| [[https:// | [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== General Tips ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * if you can, pick a continuous outcome over a binary outcome | ||
| + | * Why? For a binary outcome, you'll need a much larger sample size. Continuous outcomes also allow more precision. | ||
| + | * logistic regressions stink! | ||
| + | |||
| + | logistic regression = linear model for the log-odds of the outcome | ||
| + | |||
| + | === analyzing relationship between categorical outcome and a continuous covariate === | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===effect modification vs confounding=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | if we don't take effect modification into account, we get an over-generalized estimate of the relationship between the outcome and the exposure for the entire co-hort | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Breslow-Day Test examines if evidence of a differential association between two variables across the level of a third variable | ||
| + | * similar limitations to Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test | ||
| ==== Cochran-Mantel_haenszel test ==== | ==== Cochran-Mantel_haenszel test ==== | ||
| - | A tool for adjusting out confounding of Z, if X --> Z --> Y | + | * limitations |
| + | * can only adjust | ||
| looks at two binary categorical variables while adjusting for the value of a third categorical variable | looks at two binary categorical variables while adjusting for the value of a third categorical variable | ||