Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CORRECTION OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION RELATIVE RISK ESTIMATES AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR: THE CASE OF MULTIPLE COVARIATES MEASURED WITH ERROR

ROSNER, B., SPIEGELMAN, D., WILLETT, W. C.·1990·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

If several risk factors for disease are considered in the same multiple logistic regression model, and some of these risk factors are measured with error, the point and interval estimates of relative risk corresponding to any of these factors may be biased either toward or away from the null value. A method is provided for correcting point and interval estimates of relative risk obtained from logistic regression for measurement error in one or more continuous variables. The method requires a separate validation study to estimate the coefficients from the multivariate linear regression model relating the surrogate variables to the vector of true risk factors. Similar methods have been suggested by other authors, but none provides a means of correcting the confidence intervals which include a component of variability due to estimation of the measurement error parameters from a validation study. An example is provided from a prospective study of dietary fat, calories, and alcohol in relation to breast cancer, and from a validation study of the questionnaire used to assess these nutrients. Before correcting for measurement error, the age-adjusted relative risk for a 25 g increment in alcohol intake was 1.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.55); after correcting for measurement error, the relative risk increased to 1.62 (95% CI 1.23-2.12). Similarly, for a 10 g increment in saturated fat intake, the age-adjusted relative risk was 0.94 (95% CI 0.83-1.06); after correcting for measurement error, the relative risk was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59-1.20). These results indicate that the failure to find a substantial positive association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake cannot be explained by measurement error in fat, calories, or alcohol.

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 · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115715

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 464

Metadata

Authors
ROSNER, B., SPIEGELMAN, D., & WILLETT, W. C.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1990-10
Volume
132
Issue
4
Pages
734-745
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W1927711487
Cited by
464
References
2
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: CORRECTION OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION RELATIVE RISK ESTIMATES AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR: THE CASE OF MULTIPLE COVARIATES MEASURED WITH ERROR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115715
The paper
ROSNER, B., SPIEGELMAN, D., & WILLETT, W. C. (1990). CORRECTION OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION RELATIVE RISK ESTIMATES AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR: THE CASE OF MULTIPLE COVARIATES MEASURED WITH ERROR. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115715

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.