Talk:Odds ratio

message: A correlation can certainly "imply" causality.
However, it does not demonstrate causality.  It does not have anything to do with etiological mechanisms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugisb (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

message: It may have just been too long since I've done math, but the author wrote that OR = (Diseased-exposed/Healthy-exposed)/(Diseased-unexposed/Healthy-unexposed), which is in contrast with this pubmed article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/. This pubmed article defines OR = (Diseased-exposed/Diseased-unexposed)/(Healthy-exposed/Healthy-unexposed). I really, truly suck at statistics - anyone want to take a stab at this? 09/27/2018  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.245.138 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are mathematically equivalent, as explained later in the 'motivating example' section and also in the later section Odds ratio#Symmetry. Qwfp (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the "motivating example" straight-up wrong?

message: These sentences are opaque to me:
An alternative approach to inference for odds ratios looks at the distribution of the data conditionally on the marginal frequencies of X and Y. An advantage of this approach is that the sampling distribution of the odds ratio can be expressed exactly.
Is the author talking about a chi-squared test?  Please provide enough detail to actually perform the inference. dfrankow (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify calculating statistics 

message: Why the hyphen? Better call it Odds ratio. Any objections?  -- Hugh2414 23:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Seems like a natural connection should be made to connect this to genetic linkage and calculation of LOD scores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piperb (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything Genetic linkage#Lod score method for linkage should be linked with logit --Henrygb 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to LOD page 

message: At the end of the paragraph there's a [1] which looks like a reference but was not typeset entirely as one.
I didn't feel like going and see whether the reference actually refers to the issue. I'll leave it up to whoever knows the reference to decide what to do.
212.126.224.100 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference at the end of "Definition in terms of group-wise odds"? 

message: It is uncomprehensible. And should be in the beginning.
--Lucas Gallindo (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worked example. 

message: : I think that there is a serious error in this graph: 
: I believe, that the odds ratios reported by for example Stata span from 0 to infinity, hence negative odds ratios are impossible. I believe that lines and gradient might be OK, but lines are subtitled wrong - straight line in the middle should be "1" (equal odds ratios = 1:1 = 1), curves above should be grater than one, and curves below should be smaller than one, but always greater than zero.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamunique3 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The legend describes the graph as presenting log odds ratio which can of course be negative, all the way to minus infinity. However, I find this graph difficult to comprehend and tautologous when comprehended. Personally, I'd !vote for removing it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph showing how the log odds ratio relates to the underlying probabilities

message: At the end, it is not clear why the root with - S (instead of that with + S) is selected as the valid solution for p11. Either a reference or an explanation is needed. I have not been able to find a reference or to work out a proof  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.39.211 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "recovering the cell probabilities from the odds ratio and . . ." needs reference or explanation 

message: For a Bernoulli process with N trials and M successes and \mu =\frac{M}{N}, the variance in the number of successes is 
var(M) = N\cdot \mu\cdot(1-\mu) = M\cdot(1-\mu)
Right? This is symmetric in M and (N-M), i.e. for counting successes or failures. 
So the variance of the log of the Odds ratio should be
var(log(Odds Ratio)) = \frac{1-\hat{p}_{00}}{n_{00}} + \frac{1-\hat{p}_{01}}{n_{01}}  + \frac{1-\hat{p}_{10}}{n_{10}} + \frac{1-\hat{p}_{11}}{n_{11}} <  \frac{1}{n_{00}} + \frac{1}{n_{01}}  + \frac{1}{n_{10}} + \frac{1}{n_{11}} 
What am I missing here?
RSTate (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Error in the log(Odds Ratio) 

message: It will b helpful to feature a real-life example, perhaps illustrating Influenza vaccine effectiveness. Real data is available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2017-06/flu-03-ferdinands.pdf and more at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm  Please work through an example in detail using this real data. Explain why Odds Ratio is used in these calculations. Use natural frequencies to illustrate the calculation and its real-world interpretation. Describe the differences in Odds Ratio and Vaccine Effectiveness.Why and how is the adjustment (shown in the vaccine data displays) made. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! Qwfp (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a real example, perhaps on Influenza vaccine effectiveness 

message: Stephen Simon's 2001 article "Understanding the Odds Ratio and the Relative Risk" is used heavily in the section "Relation to relative risk". In Simon's article, he gives an example based on "data on survival of passengers on the Titanic" claiming 154 female passenger deaths and 709 male passenger deaths.
Wikipedia's own figures give 106 female passenger deaths and 659 male passenger deaths. While Simon's figures are a good illustrative example, I think we should avoid attributing them to the Titanic disaster in case they become a source of downstream misinformation. Tim Bennett (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Titanic passenger numbers are incorrect