Cited by 36Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Reconsidering the denominator of the attributable proportion for interaction

Open access
VanderWeele, Tyler J.·2013·European Journal of Epidemiology

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 · 10.1007/s10654-013-9843-6

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VanderWeele, T. J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
VanderWeele, Tyler J.
Venue
European Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2013-09-14
Volume
28
Issue
10
Pages
779-784
ISSN
  • 0393-2990 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7284
OpenAlex
W2049708264
Cited by
36
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES017876)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
additive interaction, attributable proportion, risk difference, potential outcomes framework, intervention targeting
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Models, Statistical, Epidemiologic Research Design, Causality, Epidemiologic Studies

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