Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Alternative models for ordinal logistic regression

Greenland, Sander·1994·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Armstrong and Sloan have reviewed two types of ordinal logistic models for epidemiologic data: the cumulative‐odds model and the continuation‐ratio model. I review here certain aspects of these models not emphasized previously, and describe a third type, the stereotype model, which in certain situations offers greater flexibility coupled with interpretational advantages. I illustrate the models in an analysis of pneumoconiosis among coal miners.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4780131607

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Greenland, S.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-08-30
Volume
13
Issue
16
Pages
1665-1677
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2003437905
Cited by
169
References
1
FWCI
4.57
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: Alternative models for ordinal logistic regression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.4780131607
The paper
Greenland, S. (1994). Alternative models for ordinal logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780131607

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.