1.4 What each design can estimate

The designs differ statistically in which margins of the \(2 \times 2\) table are fixed by the investigator. Let the population probabilities be \[ p_1 = P(D \mid E), \qquad p_0 = P(D \mid \bar E), \qquad q_1 = P(E \mid D), \qquad q_0 = P(E \mid \bar D), \] so that \(p_1, p_0\) are the risks in the exposed and unexposed, and \(q_1, q_0\) are the probabilities of exposure among the diseased and non-diseased.

Proposition 1.4.1 (Sampling models). Under random sampling within the groups fixed by the design:

1.
Cross-sectional: only \(n\) is fixed, and \((a, b, c, d)\) is multinomial with cell probabilities \(P(D \cap E)\), …. Every probability in the table can be estimated.
2.
Cohort: \(n_1\) and \(n_0\) are fixed and \(a \sim \text {Bin}(n_1, p_1)\), \(b \sim \text {Bin}(n_0, p_0)\) independently. The risks \(p_1, p_0\) and every function of them are estimable; \(q_1, q_0\) are not, since they depend on the proportion exposed, which the investigator chose.
3.
Case-control: \(m_1\) and \(m_0\) are fixed and \(a \sim \text {Bin}(m_1, q_1)\), \(c \sim \text {Bin}(m_0, q_0)\) independently. The exposure probabilities \(q_1, q_0\) are estimable; \(p_1, p_0\) are not, since they depend on the proportion diseased, which the investigator chose.

Proof. In the cohort design the \(n_1\) exposed subjects are a random sample from the exposed population, so each one independently has the disease with probability \(p_1\); likewise for the unexposed. In the case-control design each sampled case is exposed with probability \(q_1\) and each control with probability \(q_0\). To see that the risks cannot be estimated in a case-control study, use Bayes’ theorem with \(\pi = P(D)\): \[ p_1 = \frac {q_1 \pi }{q_1 \pi + q_0 (1 - \pi )}, \] which takes every value in \((0,1)\) as \(\pi \) ranges over \((0,1)\) with \(q_1, q_0\) fixed. The distribution of the data depends only on \((q_1, q_0)\), so two populations with the same \((q_1, q_0)\) but different \(\pi \) give the same distribution of data and different \(p_1\). No function of the data can be consistent for \(p_1\). The cohort argument is the same with the roles of \(E\) and \(D\) exchanged. □

So the case-control study, which samples on disease, cannot estimate the risk ratio, which is the quantity of interest. What rescues it is the following identity, which is why the odds ratio is everywhere in epidemiology.

Theorem 1.4.2 (Invariance of the odds ratio). The exposure odds ratio among the diseased and non-diseased equals the disease odds ratio among the exposed and unexposed: \[ \frac {q_1/(1 - q_1)}{q_0/(1 - q_0)} = \frac {p_1/(1 - p_1)}{p_0/(1 - p_0)} . \]

Proof. Both sides equal the cross-product ratio of the joint probabilities. Write \(\pi _{DE} = P(D \cap E)\) and similarly for the other three cells. Then \(q_1 = \pi _{DE}/P(D)\) and \(1 - q_1 = \pi _{D\bar E}/P(D)\), so \(q_1/(1 - q_1) = \pi _{DE}/\pi _{D\bar E}\); similarly \(q_0/(1 - q_0) = \pi _{\bar D E}/\pi _{\bar D \bar E}\). The left side is therefore \[ \frac {\pi _{DE}\,\pi _{\bar D \bar E}}{\pi _{D\bar E}\,\pi _{\bar D E}} . \] On the right, \(p_1/(1 - p_1) = \pi _{DE}/\pi _{\bar D E}\) and \(p_0/(1 - p_0) = \pi _{D\bar E}/\pi _{\bar D \bar E}\), whose ratio is the same cross-product. □

Corollary 1.4.3. In a case-control study the sample odds ratio \(ad/(bc)\) estimates the disease odds ratio \(\OR = p_1(1 - p_0)/\{p_0(1 - p_1)\}\) of the source population, consistently as \(m_1, m_0 \to \infty \).

Proof. \(a/m_1 \to q_1\) and \(c/m_0 \to q_0\) in probability by the law of large numbers, and \(b/m_1 \to 1 - q_1\), \(d/m_0 \to 1 - q_0\). The sample odds ratio \(ad/(bc) = \{(a/m_1)(d/m_0)\}/\{(b/m_1)(c/m_0)\}\) is a continuous function of these four, so it converges to the exposure odds ratio, which equals the disease odds ratio by Theorem 1.4.2. □

When the disease is rare in both exposure groups the odds ratio is close to the risk ratio, since \[ \OR = \RR \cdot \frac {1 - p_0}{1 - p_1} \] and the second factor is near \(1\) when \(p_0\) and \(p_1\) are both small. This rare disease assumption is what lets a case-control study of cancer be read as estimating a relative risk. Section 4.6 shows that with a suitable choice of controls (density sampling) the odds ratio estimates the rate ratio exactly, without the assumption.

Example 1.4.4 (Same exposure probabilities, different risk ratios). Suppose in two populations \(q_1 = P(E \mid D) = 0.6\) and \(q_0 = P(E \mid \bar D) = 0.3\), so a case-control study in either gives the same data in distribution. The odds ratio is \((0.6/0.4)/(0.3/0.7) = 3.5\) in both. If the disease has prevalence \(\pi = 0.01\) in the first population, Bayes’ theorem gives \(p_1 = 0.0198\) and \(p_0 = 0.0057\), and \(\RR = 3.45\), close to the odds ratio. If \(\pi = 0.2\) in the second, then \(p_1 = 0.333\), \(p_0 = 0.125\), and \(\RR = 2.67\). The case-control data cannot tell these populations apart; the odds ratio is the part of the association they can recover.

Proposition 1.4.5 (Case-control study with known sampling fractions). If cases are sampled from the source population with known probability \(f_1\) and non-cases with known probability \(f_0\), then the number of exposed cases in the source population is estimated by \(a/f_1\) and of exposed non-cases by \(c/f_0\), and \[ \hat p_1 = \frac {a/f_1}{a/f_1 + c/f_0}, \qquad \hat p_0 = \frac {b/f_1}{b/f_1 + d/f_0} \] estimate the risks. Their ratio \(\hat p_1/\hat p_0\) estimates the risk ratio, and their odds ratio is \(ad/(bc)\) whatever \(f_1, f_0\).

Proof. Each exposed case in the population is included with probability \(f_1\), so \(E(a) = f_1 N_{DE}\), where \(N_{DE}\) is the number of exposed cases; \(a/f_1\) is unbiased for \(N_{DE}\) and \(c/f_0\) for \(N_{\bar D E}\). The risk among the exposed is \(N_{DE}/(N_{DE} + N_{\bar D E})\), estimated by substituting. For the odds ratio, \(\hat p_1/(1 - \hat p_1) = (a/f_1)/(c/f_0)\) and \(\hat p_0/(1 - \hat p_0) = (b/f_1)/(d/f_0)\); the sampling fractions cancel in the ratio. □

Example 1.4.6. A registry records all \(200\) cases of a disease in a town over a year, so \(f_1 = 1\). A random \(1\%\) of the town’s non-cases is sampled as controls, \(f_0 = 0.01\). Of the cases \(120\) were exposed and \(80\) not; of \(300\) controls \(90\) were exposed and \(210\) not. The estimated numbers of exposed and unexposed non-cases in the town are \(9000\) and \(21{,}000\), so \[ \hat p_1 = \frac {120}{120 + 9000} = 0.0132, \qquad \hat p_0 = \frac {80}{80 + 21000} = 0.0038, \] so \(\widehat {\RR } = 0.0132/0.0038 = 3.47\), while the odds ratio is \((120 \times 210)/(80 \times 90) = 3.50\). A population-based case-control study with known sampling fractions is a cohort study in which only a sample of the non-cases has been measured.

Questions on this section

Stuck on something here? Ask below and it stays attached to this topic.