Cited by 338Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery

Open access
Norén, G Niklas, Hopstadius, Johan, Bate, Andrew·2013·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Large observational data sets are a great asset to better understand the effects of medicines in clinical practice and, ultimately, improve patient care. For an empirical pattern in observational data to be of practical relevance, it should represent a substantial deviation from the null model. For the purpose of identifying such deviations, statistical significance tests are inadequate, as they do not on their own distinguish the magnitude of an effect from its data support. The observed-to-expected (OE) ratio on the other hand directly measures strength of association and is an intuitive basis to identify a range of patterns related to event rates, including pairwise associations, higher order interactions and temporal associations between events over time. It is sensitive to random fluctuations for rare events with low expected counts but statistical shrinkage can protect against spurious associations. Shrinkage OE ratios provide a simple but powerful framework for large-scale pattern discovery. In this article, we outline a range of patterns that are naturally viewed in terms of OE ratios and propose a straightforward and effective statistical shrinkage transformation that can be applied to any such ratio. The proposed approach retains emphasis on the practical relevance and transparency of highlighted patterns, while protecting against spurious associations.

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 · 10.1177/0962280211403604

Cites

26 of 26 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

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
Norén, G. N., Hopstadius, J., & Bate, A.
Affiliations
Uppsala Monitoring Centre (SE)
Corresponding author
Norén, G Niklas
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2011-06-24
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
57-69
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2005366883
Cited by
336
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
observed-to-expected ratio, pattern discovery, observational data, spurious association, rare events, higher-order interactions, temporal association, associative strength, clinical practice
MeSH terms
Models, Statistical

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