The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving ecological inference using individual‐level data
Abstract
In typical small‐area studies of health and environment we wish to make inference on the relationship between individual‐level quantities using aggregate, or ecological, data. Such ecological inference is often subject to bias and imprecision, due to the lack of individual‐level information in the data. Conversely, individual‐level survey data often have insufficient power to study small‐area variations in health. Such problems can be reduced by supplementing the aggregate‐level data with small samples of data from individuals within the areas, which directly link exposures and outcomes. We outline a hierarchical model framework for estimating individual‐level associations using a combination of aggregate and individual data. We perform a comprehensive simulation study, under a variety of realistic conditions, to determine when aggregate data are sufficient for accurate inference, and when we also require individual‐level information. Finally, we illustrate the methods in a case study investigating the relationship between limiting long‐term illness, ethnicity and income in London. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecological Bias, Confounding, and Effect Modification
GREENLAND, S., & MORGENSTERN, H. (1989) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/18.1.269 · Cited by 540
Invited commentary: ecologic studies—biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples
Greenland, S., & Robins, J. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117069 · Cited by 494
Cited by
Methods for Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Health Technology Appraisal
Phillippo, D. M., Ades, A. E., Dias, S., Palmer, S., Abrams, K. R., & Welton, N. J. (2018) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x17725740 · Cited by 396
Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., van Valkenhoef, G., Efthimiou, O., Hummel, N., Groenwold, R. H. H., Reitsma, J. B., & on behalf of the GetReal methods review group (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1160 · Cited by 348
Verde, P. E., & Ohmann, C. (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1122 · Cited by 123
Hua, H., Burke, D. L., Crowther, M. J., Ensor, J., Tudur Smith, C., & Riley, R. D. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7171 · Cited by 113
Burnout and patient safety: navigating between exaggerated evidence and warranted assertability
Montgomery, A., Chalili, V., Maliousis, I., & Lainidi, O. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1801061
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, C., Best, N., & Richardson, S.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-10-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2136-2159
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2049552036
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving ecological inference using individual‐level data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.2370
- The paper
- Jackson, C., Best, N., & Richardson, S. (2006). Improving ecological inference using individual‐level data. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2370
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.