Cited by 108Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Efficiency Loss from Categorizing Quantitative Exposures into Qualitative Exposures in Case-Control Studies

Zhao, Lue Ping, Kolonel, Laurence N.·1992·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

In the analysis of data from case-control studies, quantitative exposure variables are frequently categorized into qualitative exposure variables, such as quarters. The qualitative exposure variables may be scalar variables that take the median values of each quantile interval, or they may be vectors of indicator variables that represent each quantile interval. In a qualitative analysis, the scalar variables may be used to test the dose-response relation, while the indicator variables may be used to estimate odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest. Qualitative analysis, implicitly and explicitly documented by many epidemiologists and biostatisticians, has several desirable advantages (including simple interpretation and robustness in the presence of a misspecified model or outlier values). In a quantitative analysis, the quantitative exposure variables may be directly regressed to test the dose-response relation, as well as to estimate odds ratios of interest. As this paper demonstrates, quantitative analysis is generally more efficient than qualitative analysis. Through a Monte Carlo simulation study, the authors estimated the loss of efficiency that results from categorizing a quantitative exposure variable by quartiles in case-control studies with a total of 200 cases and 200 controls. In the analysis of the dose-response relation, this loss is about 30% or more; the percentage may reach about 50% when the odds ratio for the fourth quartile interval versus the lowest is around 4. In estimating odds ratios, the loss of efficiency for the second, third, and fourth quartile intervals versus the lowest is around 90%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. The authors consider the pros and cons of each analytic approach, and they recommend that 1) qualitative analysis be used initially to estimate the odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest to examine the dose-response relation and determine the appropriateness of the assumed underlying model; and 2) quantitative analysis be used to test the dose-response relation under a plausible log odds ratio model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116520

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, L. P., & Kolonel, L. N.
Affiliations
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, Lue Ping
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1992-08-15
Volume
136
Issue
4
Pages
464-474
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W1935655485
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P01CA 33619, P01CA033619)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
efficiency loss, case-control study, dose-response relationship, odds ratio, dummy variables, model misspecification, Monte Carlo simulation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Models, Statistical, Odds Ratio, Case-Control 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