# Authors' response: Statistical methodology critique and alternative approaches in H5Nx avian influenza seroprevalence study among French cats

Brandon Hayes, Pierre Bessière, Jean-Luc Guérin

► To cite this version:

Brandon Hayes, Pierre Bessière, Jean-Luc Guérin. Authors' response: Statistical methodology critique and alternative approaches in H5Nx avian influenza seroprevalence study among French cats. Eurosurveillance, 2025, 30 (15), 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.15.2500247. hal-05206819

HAL Id: hal-05206819

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05206819v1

Submitted on 11 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Authors' response: Statistical methodology critique and alternative approaches in H5Nx avian influenza seroprevalence study among French cats

Brandon Hayes¹, Pierre Bessière¹, Jean-Luc Guérin¹

1. IHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRAE, ENVT, Toulouse, France

Correspondence: Pierre Bessière (pierre.bessiere@envt.fr)

## Citation style for this article:

Hayes Brandon, Bessière Pierre, Guérin Jean-Luc. Authors' response: Statistical methodology critique and alternative approaches in H5Nx avian influenza seroprevalence study among French cats. Euro Surveill. 2025;30(15):pii=2500247. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.15.2500247

Article received on 8 Apr 2025 / Accepted on 11 Apr 2025 / Published on 17 Apr 2025

To the editor: We appreciate our colleague's interest in our study and their engagement with our employed methodology. However, we respectfully disagree with the assertion that our approach violates multiple fundamental assumptions of Firth regression. Firth's penalised maximum likelihood estimation was designed to address bias from small samples as well as handle complete or quasi-complete separation in data [1-3]. Several of the cited assumptions—including ‘no perfect separation’ and ‘sufficient sample size’—are not only not violated but rather are directly addressed through this approach.

In regression modelling, the most important assumption is validity of the model itself: that is, whether the chosen predictors can explain variation in the outcome [4]. This is followed by additivity, linearity and, for the residuals, independence, equal variance and normality. Our model satisfies this principal condition through focusing on biologically plausible predictors of H5 serostatus in cats: environmental exposure through proxies of ownership and hunting behaviour, and regional highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak risk in poultry.

The imbalanced sampling distribution, reflecting a targeted sampling approach that prioritised departments classified as at-risk, can indeed be a concern from an external validity perspective. However, this imbalance is not a violation of regression assumptions [5], and is even explicitly addressed in our model's structure by including the HPAI risk status of the departments as a covariate.

We agree that independence of observations is a core tenant of logistic regression, and that potential clustering could exist within or between departments and serve as a source of dependence. Although our data were too sparse to assess 33 department-level effects, in future analyses, mixed-effect or spatial regression models could be employed to account for this more explicitly.

Following the suggested analytical techniques, we examined monotonic relationships. Stray status showed a weakly significant association with H5 seropositivity (Spearman's $p=0.074$; $p=0.047$), while hunting behaviour among owned cats did not. When combined into a composite variable of both stray status and hunting frequency (believed to represent degrees of environmental exposure), a slightly stronger and still significant correlation was seen ($p=0.090$; $p=0.016$). Mutual information analysis supported these conclusions, with hunting behaviour and the composite ‘stray + hunt’ variable (for overall environmental exposure) suggested to be the most informative predictors of serostatus (Table).

However, although these techniques are well suited for exploring this dataset, they are not a substitute for regression modelling when the goal is to estimate the strength and direction of associations. Despite the potential for some degree of violation of the assumption of independence due to spatial clustering (with associated potential for inflated type I errors and/or exaggerated effects size), when used with appropriate caution and transparency, regression can still provide insights into the factors associated with seropositivity in our study [6].

Conducting robust and accurate data analyses is paramount to advancing the quality of research in our field.

## TABLE

<table><caption>Mutual information ranking scores</caption><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>MI score</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hunting behaviour</td><td>0.0165</td></tr><tr><td>Stray + hunt interaction</td><td>0.0026</td></tr><tr><td>Stray status</td><td>0.0021</td></tr><tr><td>Department at risk</td><td>0.0020</td></tr><tr><td>Department</td><td>0.0014</td></tr></tbody></table>

MI: mutual information.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
This peer critique has provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on our methodology choices and deepen our understanding of the complexities inherent to serosurvey data. We thank our colleagues for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue and help elevate the scientific standard, and we look forward to further discussion as it arises.

**Use of artificial intelligence tools**

None declared.

**Conflict of interest**

None declared.

**Authors' contributions**

BH drafted the manuscript; PB and JLG reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.

**References**

1. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80(1):27-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/ biomet/80.1.27

2. Heinze G. A comparative investigation of methods for logistic regression with separated or nearly separated data. Stat Med. 2006;25(24):4216-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2687 PMID: 16955543

3. Heinze G, Schemper M. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2409-19. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sim.1047 PMID: 12210625

4. Gelman A, Hill J, editors. Chapter 3. Linear regression: the basics. In: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/ hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 625.

5. van den Goorbergh R, van Smeden M, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. The harm of class imbalance corrections for risk prediction models: illustration and simulation using logistic regression. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(9):1525-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac093 PMID: 35686364

6. Ntani G, Inskip H, Osmond C, Coggon D. Consequences of ignoring clustering in linear regression. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021- 01333-7 PMID: 34233609

**License, supplementary material and copyright**

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence and indicate if changes were made.

Any supplementary material referenced in the article can be found in the online version.

This article is copyright of the authors or their affiliated institutions, 2025.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>