↓ Skip to main content

Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
316 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0519-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wansu Chen, Lei Qian, Jiaxiao Shi, Meredith Franklin

Abstract

Log-binomial and robust (modified) Poisson regression models are popular approaches to estimate risk ratios for binary response variables. Previous studies have shown that comparatively they produce similar point estimates and standard errors. However, their performance under model misspecification is poorly understood. In this simulation study, the statistical performance of the two models was compared when the log link function was misspecified or the response depended on predictors through a non-linear relationship (i.e. truncated response). Point estimates from log-binomial models were biased when the link function was misspecified or when the probability distribution of the response variable was truncated at the right tail. The percentage of truncated observations was positively associated with the presence of bias, and the bias was larger if the observations came from a population with a lower response rate given that the other parameters being examined were fixed. In contrast, point estimates from the robust Poisson models were unbiased. Under model misspecification, the robust Poisson model was generally preferable because it provided unbiased estimates of risk ratios.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 266 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 17%
Researcher 45 17%
Student > Master 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 72 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 18%
Social Sciences 32 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 8%
Mathematics 11 4%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 102 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,532,596
of 25,392,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#180
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,727
of 336,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.