Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1994 Nov;102(Suppl 8):33–39. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94102s833

Hierarchical regression for epidemiologic analyses of multiple exposures.

S Greenland 1
PMCID: PMC1566551  PMID: 7851328

Abstract

Many epidemiologic investigations are designed to study the effects of multiple exposures. Most of these studies are analyzed either by fitting a risk-regression model with all exposures forced in the model, or by using a preliminary-testing algorithm, such as stepwise regression, to produce a smaller model. Research indicates that hierarchical modeling methods can outperform these conventional approaches. These methods are reviewed and compared to two hierarchical methods, empirical-Bayes regression and a variant here called "semi-Bayes" regression, to full-model maximum likelihood and to model reduction by preliminary testing. The performance of the methods in a problem of predicting neonatal-mortality rates are compared. Based on the literature to date, it is suggested that hierarchical methods should become part of the standard approaches to multiple-exposure studies.

Full text

PDF
33

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Greenland S. A semi-Bayes approach to the analysis of correlated multiple associations, with an application to an occupational cancer-mortality study. Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):219–230. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780110208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Greenland S. Methods for epidemiologic analyses of multiple exposures: a review and comparative study of maximum-likelihood, preliminary-testing, and empirical-Bayes regression. Stat Med. 1993 Apr 30;12(8):717–736. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780120802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Greenland S., Robins J. M. Empirical-Bayes adjustments for multiple comparisons are sometimes useful. Epidemiology. 1991 Jul;2(4):244–251. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199107000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Louis T. A. Using empirical Bayes methods in biopharmaceutical research. Stat Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):811–829. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mickey R. M., Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jan;129(1):125–137. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Neutra R. R., Fienberg S. E., Greenland S., Friedman E. A. Effect of fetal monitoring on neonatal death rates. N Engl J Med. 1978 Aug 17;299(7):324–326. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197808172990702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rothman K. J. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990 Jan;1(1):43–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Thomas D. C., Siemiatycki J., Dewar R., Robins J., Goldberg M., Armstrong B. G. The problem of multiple inference in studies designed to generate hypotheses. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Dec;122(6):1080–1095. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES