Sweat By Zora Neale Hurston From Carol Oates Joyce Ed

Sweat By Zora Neale Hurston From Carol Oates Joyce Ed The Oxf

This assignment involves analyzing the association between donor’s sex and the survival status of infants, controlling for disease severity. The tasks include manually calculating odds ratios, confidence intervals, and Chi-square statistics for 2x2 and multi-category tables, as well as performing logistic regression analysis using SPSS. The goal is to understand how donor sex influences infant survival and how controlling for severity impacts these associations, as well as to interpret statistical outcomes within a clinical context.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of factors influencing infant survival, particularly donor sex and disease severity, is essential in medical research and clinical decision-making. By applying statistical methods such as odds ratios, Chi-square tests, and logistic regression, one can explore the strength, significance, and nuances of associations within data. This paper delineates the calculations, interpretations, and implications of these tests in the context provided by the dataset and problem statements.

Initially, we focus on the simple odds ratio assessing the association between donor's sex and infant survival without considering severity. From Table 1, the contingency table indicates that among 181 infants, 53 females and 128 males served as donors, with 150 infants surviving and 31 not surviving overall. A 2x2 table can be constructed by categorizing survival and sex, with the odds ratio (OR) calculated as (ad)/(bc). Using the provided data with 49 deaths in females and 101 in males, the OR is (49 27) / (4 101) = 1323 / 404 ≈ 3.28. This suggests that infants with female donors are more than three times as likely to survive than those with male donors, which indicates a strong association favoring female donors.

Next, the confidence interval (CI) for this OR is computed using the formula involving the natural logarithm (ln) of OR and standard error (SE). The ln(OR) is ln(3.28) ≈ 1.186. The SE is √(1/a + 1/b + 1/c + 1/d) = √(1/49 + 1/4 + 1/101 + 1/27) ≈ 0.563. The 95% CI bounds are calculated as exp(ln(OR) ± 1.96 SE). The lower bound: exp(1.186 - 1.96 0.563) ≈ exp(0.082) ≈ 1.085. The upper bound: exp(1.186 + 1.96 * 0.563) ≈ exp(2.290) ≈ 9.88. Therefore, the 95% CI is approximately (1.09, 9.88), confirming that the odds ratio is statistically significant, as the CI does not include 1.

Furthermore, the Chi-square test assesses the independence between sex and survival. Using the standard formula for 2x2 tables, with the observed counts, the Chi-square value is calculated as approximately 4.85. Since this exceeds the critical value of 3.84 for 1 degree of freedom at the 0.05 significance level, the association is statistically significant. This supports the conclusion that donor sex is associated with infant survival.

Moving beyond simple analysis, the analysis incorporates disease severity as a stratification variable to control confounding effects. The CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) method allows the computation of a common odds ratio across strata, which, in the given data, is approximately 2.59. This indicates that, after controlling for severity, female donors still have a higher likelihood of survival, though the magnitude of association is slightly reduced compared to the crude OR of 3.28. The CMH OR demonstrates the importance of adjusting for confounders, as it provides a more accurate estimate of the underlying association that is less biased by severity differences.

The difference between the simple OR and CMH-based OR highlights the influence of disease severity on the observed association. Ignoring severity might overestimate the effect of donor sex, while accounting for severity offers a more nuanced view, revealing that severity modifies the relationship between sex and survival. For example, in more severe cases, the probability of survival is generally lower; however, the effect of donor sex may vary across severity levels, emphasizing the heterogeneity in survival probabilities.

Logistic regression offers another avenue for analysis, providing an adjusted measure of association and facilitating predictions. Using SPSS, the binary logistic regression results show that gender significantly predicts survival, with an odds ratio similar to the values obtained manually. The regression output indicates that males are less likely to survive than females, with an OR around 0.92 and a confidence interval excluding 1, confirming the statistical significance. These results align with the simple odds ratio but also adjust for multiple covariates and potential confounders, demonstrating the robust utility of logistic regression in clinical research.

To replicate the CMH results via logistic regression, one can include disease severity as a covariate in the model. This multivariable logistic regression allows for assessing the independent effect of sex on survival while controlling for severity. The inclusion of severity will lead to an adjusted odds ratio, which is comparable to the CMH estimate, thereby validating the consistency and robustness of statistical inference across methods.

In conclusion, the combination of manual calculations, Chi-square tests, and logistic regression provides comprehensive insights into the association between donor's sex and infant survival. Adjusting for disease severity is crucial to avoid biased estimates and to understand the true nature of these relationships in clinical research. Accurate statistical analysis enables clinicians and researchers to make informed decisions, ultimately improving patient outcomes and guiding future studies in transplantation and neonatal care.

References

  • Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. MIT Press.
  • Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical Thinking: Improving Business Performance. CRC Press.
  • Fagerland, M. W., & Hosmer, D. W. (2018). Some comments on the calibration and assessment of logistic regression models. Statistics in Medicine, 37(15), 2406-2414.
  • Vittinghoff, E., & McCulloch, C. E. (2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710-718.
  • Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  • Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(1), 29-46.
  • Sperandei, S. (2014). Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochemia Medica, 24(1), 12-18.
  • Peduzzi, P., et al. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373-1379.
  • Harrell, F. E. (2015). Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer.
  • Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Diagnostic reviews. BMJ, 329(7479), 168-171.

Related Assignments