自闭症谱系障碍,2:在检验回归风险预测因子时风险数值的不精确性观察。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Chittaranjan Andrade
{"title":"自闭症谱系障碍,2:在检验回归风险预测因子时风险数值的不精确性观察。","authors":"Chittaranjan Andrade","doi":"10.4088/JCP.25f15918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hundreds of genes and more than a hundred environmental exposures have been identified as potential causes, mediators, or markers of risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The findings for the environmental exposures, almost all occurring during pregnancy, have emerged from regression analyses in observational studies. The risk estimates are most often presented as odds ratios (ORs), sometimes as hazard ratios (HRs), and rarely as relative risks. This article uses gestational exposure to antidepressant drugs and risk of ASD in offspring as a background to explain how estimates of ASD risk in observational studies are commonly interpreted and why and when the usual interpretations are wrong, often very wrong. The article provides discussions on crude and adjusted estimates, ORs and HRs, individual studies and meta-analyses, strategies that help address confounding by unmeasured and unknown variables, and a detailed discussion on the imprecision of the numerical value of the adjusted estimate. The article explains how the value of an OR is not set in stone; different procedures and approaches in analysis of the same data result in different OR values. The article also explains how to evaluate an individual patient's risk when multiple risk factors are present that may or may not be independent of each other. Finally, the article suggests the presence of an elephant in the room: risk factors that, though independent, may saturate mechanisms that mediate the outcome; so, when simultaneously present, their individual ORs may suggest falsely lower values of risk. This suggestion could explain why ASD is uncommon in the population although the risk factors for ASD are common and many. It is important to be aware of the issues considered in this article when attempting to understand the field, counsel patients, communicate research findings to peers and the public, and frame policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":50234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":"86 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2: Observations on the Imprecision of the Numerical Value of Risk when Examining Predictors of Risk in Regression.\",\"authors\":\"Chittaranjan Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.4088/JCP.25f15918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Hundreds of genes and more than a hundred environmental exposures have been identified as potential causes, mediators, or markers of risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The findings for the environmental exposures, almost all occurring during pregnancy, have emerged from regression analyses in observational studies. The risk estimates are most often presented as odds ratios (ORs), sometimes as hazard ratios (HRs), and rarely as relative risks. This article uses gestational exposure to antidepressant drugs and risk of ASD in offspring as a background to explain how estimates of ASD risk in observational studies are commonly interpreted and why and when the usual interpretations are wrong, often very wrong. The article provides discussions on crude and adjusted estimates, ORs and HRs, individual studies and meta-analyses, strategies that help address confounding by unmeasured and unknown variables, and a detailed discussion on the imprecision of the numerical value of the adjusted estimate. The article explains how the value of an OR is not set in stone; different procedures and approaches in analysis of the same data result in different OR values. The article also explains how to evaluate an individual patient's risk when multiple risk factors are present that may or may not be independent of each other. Finally, the article suggests the presence of an elephant in the room: risk factors that, though independent, may saturate mechanisms that mediate the outcome; so, when simultaneously present, their individual ORs may suggest falsely lower values of risk. This suggestion could explain why ASD is uncommon in the population although the risk factors for ASD are common and many. It is important to be aware of the issues considered in this article when attempting to understand the field, counsel patients, communicate research findings to peers and the public, and frame policy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"86 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.25f15918\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.25f15918","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数百种基因和超过100种环境暴露已被确定为自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)风险的潜在原因、媒介或标记。环境暴露的发现,几乎都发生在怀孕期间,是在观察性研究的回归分析中得出的。风险估计最常以优势比(or)表示,有时以风险比(hr)表示,很少以相对风险表示。本文以妊娠期接触抗抑郁药物和后代患ASD的风险为背景,解释观察性研究中对ASD风险的估计通常是如何解释的,以及为什么通常的解释是错误的,通常是非常错误的。本文讨论了粗糙和调整后的估计,ORs和hr,个体研究和荟萃分析,有助于解决未测量和未知变量混淆的策略,并详细讨论了调整后的估计数值的不精确性。本文解释了OR的值如何不是一成不变的;不同的程序和方法分析相同的数据会导致不同的OR值。这篇文章还解释了当多个风险因素存在时,如何评估个体患者的风险,这些风险因素可能是相互独立的,也可能不是。最后,这篇文章提出了房间里大象的存在:风险因素,虽然是独立的,但可能会饱和调解结果的机制;因此,当同时出现时,他们的个人风险评估可能会错误地建议较低的风险值。这一建议可以解释为什么ASD在人群中不常见,尽管ASD的危险因素很常见而且很多。在试图了解该领域、为患者提供咨询、向同行和公众传达研究结果以及制定政策时,了解本文中考虑的问题是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2: Observations on the Imprecision of the Numerical Value of Risk when Examining Predictors of Risk in Regression.

Hundreds of genes and more than a hundred environmental exposures have been identified as potential causes, mediators, or markers of risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The findings for the environmental exposures, almost all occurring during pregnancy, have emerged from regression analyses in observational studies. The risk estimates are most often presented as odds ratios (ORs), sometimes as hazard ratios (HRs), and rarely as relative risks. This article uses gestational exposure to antidepressant drugs and risk of ASD in offspring as a background to explain how estimates of ASD risk in observational studies are commonly interpreted and why and when the usual interpretations are wrong, often very wrong. The article provides discussions on crude and adjusted estimates, ORs and HRs, individual studies and meta-analyses, strategies that help address confounding by unmeasured and unknown variables, and a detailed discussion on the imprecision of the numerical value of the adjusted estimate. The article explains how the value of an OR is not set in stone; different procedures and approaches in analysis of the same data result in different OR values. The article also explains how to evaluate an individual patient's risk when multiple risk factors are present that may or may not be independent of each other. Finally, the article suggests the presence of an elephant in the room: risk factors that, though independent, may saturate mechanisms that mediate the outcome; so, when simultaneously present, their individual ORs may suggest falsely lower values of risk. This suggestion could explain why ASD is uncommon in the population although the risk factors for ASD are common and many. It is important to be aware of the issues considered in this article when attempting to understand the field, counsel patients, communicate research findings to peers and the public, and frame policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: For over 75 years, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has been a leading source of peer-reviewed articles offering the latest information on mental health topics to psychiatrists and other medical professionals.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry is the leading psychiatric resource for clinical information and covers disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while exploring the newest advances in diagnosis and treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信