{"title":"Collider Bias Is an Insufficient Explanation for the Inverse Obesity Paradox in Prostate Cancer","authors":"Tanja Stocks, Christel Häggström, Josef Fritz","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Collider bias is often considered a potential explanation when the association between obesity and disease diagnosis differs from that with disease outcome, as seen in the “obesity paradox.” For prostate cancer (PCa), in particular localized PCa, an “inverse” obesity paradox has been observed, where body mass index (BMI) is negatively associated with diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] ~0.9 per 5-kg/m<sup>2</sup> increase), but positively associated with PCa-specific death (HR ~ 1.2). However, collider bias in this context remains unexplored.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We simulated binary disease diagnosis and outcome data, including the typically unmeasured/unknown background variable (U) that could introduce collider bias. We calculated U-unadjusted (biased) and U-adjusted (true) marginal odds ratios (OR) from a case-only analysis, and determined the bias percentage using <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mfenced>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mtext>OR</mtext>\n <mtext>Biased</mtext>\n </msub>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <msub>\n <mtext>OR</mtext>\n <mtext>True</mtext>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n </mfenced>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mtext>OR</mtext>\n <mtext>True</mtext>\n </msub>\n <mo>×</mo>\n <mn>100</mn>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\left({\\mathrm{OR}}_{\\mathrm{Biased}}-{\\mathrm{OR}}_{\\mathrm{True}}\\right)/{\\mathrm{OR}}_{\\mathrm{True}}\\times 100 $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>. Similar simulations were performed for classical confounding.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Across a broad range of plausible parameter values for the PCa context, collider bias did not distort the OR of BMI on PCa death by more than 4%, equivalent to a ± 0.04 distortion in the OR estimate for continuous BMI. In comparison, classical confounding showed a higher potential for distorting BMI and PCa death associations than collider bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Collider bias alone is unlikely to explain the inverse obesity paradox in (localized) PCa, reinforcing some mechanistic evidence that the observed positive relationship between BMI and PCa death is real, and not a statistical artifact. This finding emphasizes the importance of exploring alternative mechanisms beyond collider bias to better understand the underlying factors driving this paradox.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70871","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70871","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Collider bias is often considered a potential explanation when the association between obesity and disease diagnosis differs from that with disease outcome, as seen in the “obesity paradox.” For prostate cancer (PCa), in particular localized PCa, an “inverse” obesity paradox has been observed, where body mass index (BMI) is negatively associated with diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] ~0.9 per 5-kg/m2 increase), but positively associated with PCa-specific death (HR ~ 1.2). However, collider bias in this context remains unexplored.
Methods
We simulated binary disease diagnosis and outcome data, including the typically unmeasured/unknown background variable (U) that could introduce collider bias. We calculated U-unadjusted (biased) and U-adjusted (true) marginal odds ratios (OR) from a case-only analysis, and determined the bias percentage using . Similar simulations were performed for classical confounding.
Results
Across a broad range of plausible parameter values for the PCa context, collider bias did not distort the OR of BMI on PCa death by more than 4%, equivalent to a ± 0.04 distortion in the OR estimate for continuous BMI. In comparison, classical confounding showed a higher potential for distorting BMI and PCa death associations than collider bias.
Conclusions
Collider bias alone is unlikely to explain the inverse obesity paradox in (localized) PCa, reinforcing some mechanistic evidence that the observed positive relationship between BMI and PCa death is real, and not a statistical artifact. This finding emphasizes the importance of exploring alternative mechanisms beyond collider bias to better understand the underlying factors driving this paradox.
当肥胖与疾病诊断之间的关联不同于与疾病结果之间的关联时,正如“肥胖悖论”所见,对撞机偏差通常被认为是一种潜在的解释。对于前列腺癌(PCa),特别是局部前列腺癌,已经观察到“反向”肥胖悖论,其中体重指数(BMI)与诊断呈负相关(每增加5 kg/m2风险比[HR] 0.9),但与前列腺癌特异性死亡呈正相关(HR 1.2)。然而,在这种情况下,对撞机偏差仍然未被探索。方法模拟二元疾病诊断和结局数据,包括可能引入对撞机偏差的典型未测量/未知背景变量(U)。我们计算了u -未调整(偏倚)和u -调整(真实)的边际优势比(OR),并使用OR Biased - OR True来确定偏差百分比/或True × 100 $$ \left({\mathrm{OR}}_{\mathrm{Biased}}-{\mathrm{OR}}_{\mathrm{True}}\right)/{\mathrm{OR}}_{\mathrm{True}}\times 100 $$。对经典混淆进行了类似的模拟。结果在PCa背景下,在广泛的貌似合理的参数值范围内,碰撞偏倚没有使BMI与PCa死亡的比值扭曲超过4%, equivalent to a ± 0.04 distortion in the OR estimate for continuous BMI. In comparison, classical confounding showed a higher potential for distorting BMI and PCa death associations than collider bias. Conclusions Collider bias alone is unlikely to explain the inverse obesity paradox in (localized) PCa, reinforcing some mechanistic evidence that the observed positive relationship between BMI and PCa death is real, and not a statistical artifact. This finding emphasizes the importance of exploring alternative mechanisms beyond collider bias to better understand the underlying factors driving this paradox.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas:
Clinical Cancer Research
Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations
Cancer Biology:
Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery.
Cancer Prevention:
Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach.
Bioinformatics:
Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers.
Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.