Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,085

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dose-Response and Trend Analysis in Epidemiology: Alternatives to Categorical Analysis

Greenland, Sander·1995·Epidemiology

Abstract

Standard categorical analysis is based on an unrealistic model for dose-response and trends and does not make efficient use of within-category information. This paper describes two classes of simple alternatives that can be implemented with any regression software: fractional polynomial regression and spline regression. These methods are illustrated in a problem of estimating historical trends in human immunodeficiency virus incidence. Fractional polynomial and spline regression are especially valuable when important nonlinearities are anticipated and software for more general nonparametric regression approaches is not available.

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 · 10.1097/00001648-199507000-00005

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.

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

Cited by

See all 1,085

Metadata

Authors
Greenland, S.
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
1995-07
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
356-365
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039493274
Cited by
1,085
References
0
FWCI
17.35
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: Dose-Response and Trend Analysis in Epidemiology: Alternatives to Categorical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00001648-199507000-00005
The paper
Greenland, S. (1995). Dose-Response and Trend Analysis in Epidemiology: Alternatives to Categorical Analysis. Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199507000-00005

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.