↓ Skip to main content

Unconditional or Conditional Logistic Regression Model for Age-Matched Case–Control Data?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
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
Unconditional or Conditional Logistic Regression Model for Age-Matched Case–Control Data?
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chia-Ling Kuo, Yinghui Duan, James Grady

Abstract

Matching on demographic variables is commonly used in case-control studies to adjust for confounding at the design stage. There is a presumption that matched data need to be analyzed by matched methods. Conditional logistic regression has become a standard for matched case-control data to tackle the sparse data problem. The sparse data problem, however, may not be a concern for loose-matching data when the matching between cases and controls is not unique, and one case can be matched to other controls without substantially changing the association. Data matched on a few demographic variables are clearly loose-matching data, and we hypothesize that unconditional logistic regression is a proper method to perform. To address the hypothesis, we compare unconditional and conditional logistic regression models by precision in estimates and hypothesis testing using simulated matched case-control data. Our results support our hypothesis; however, the unconditional model is not as robust as the conditional model to the matching distortion that the matching process not only makes cases and controls similar for matching variables but also for the exposure status. When the study design involves other complex features or the computational burden is high, matching in loose-matching data can be ignored for negligible loss in testing and estimation if the distributions of matching variables are not extremely different between cases and controls.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 17%
Researcher 33 14%
Other 13 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 4%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 70 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 3%
Other 59 25%
Unknown 85 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,985,345
of 23,513,114 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,171
of 11,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,135
of 332,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#33
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,513,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 332,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.