{"doi":"10.2174/1874297101205010013","title":"At Odds: Concerns Raised by Using Odds Ratios for Continuous or\nCommon Dichotomous Outcomes in Research on Physical Activity and\nObesity","abstract":"<jats:p>Purpose: Research on obesity and the built environment has often featured logistic regression and the\ncorresponding parameter, the odds ratio. Use of odds ratios for common outcomes such obesity may unnecessarily hinder\nthe validity, interpretation, and communication of research findings. Methods: We identified three key issues raised by the\nuse of odds ratios, illustrating them with data on walkability and body mass index from a study of 13,102 New York City\nresidents. Results: First, dichotomization of continuous measures such as body mass index discards theoretically relevant\ninformation, reduces statistical power, and amplifies measurement error. Second, odds ratios are systematically higher\n(further from the null) than prevalence ratios; this inflation is trivial for rare outcomes, but substantial for common\noutcomes like obesity. Third, odds ratios can lead to incorrect conclusions during tests of interactions. The odds ratio in a\nparticular subgroup might higher simply because the outcome is more common (and the odds ratio inflated) compared\nwith other subgroups. Conclusion: Our recommendations are to take full advantage of continuous outcome data when\nfeasible and to use prevalence ratios in place of odds ratios for common dichotomous outcomes. When odds ratios must\nbe used, authors should document outcome prevalence across exposure groups.</jats:p>","journal":"The Open Epidemiology Journal","year":2012,"id":15058,"datarank":3.0497817937167375,"base_score":4.007333185232471,"endowment":4.007333185232471,"self_citation_contribution":0.6010999777848708,"citation_network_contribution":2.4486818159318666,"self_endowment_contribution":0.6010999777848708,"citer_contribution":2.4486818159318666,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":54,"citer_count":48,"citers_with_citation_signal":39,"citers_with_endowment":39,"datacite_reuse_total":1,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":116369,"name":"Lindsay J. Underhill","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":116370,"name":"Darby Jack","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":116371,"name":"Catherine Richards","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":116372,"name":"Christopher Weiss","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":107946,"name":"Andrew Rundle","orcid":"0000-0003-0211-7707","position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":116368,"name":"Gina S. Lovasi","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"base_score":4.007333185232471,"endowment":4.007333185232471,"datacite_reuse_total":1,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"23002407","pmcid":"PMC3446823","openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W2136790891","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"NIEHS NIH HHS","grant_id":"R01 ES014229","title":null}],"total_grants":1,"fwci":7.4827,"citation_percentile":0.96601112,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2013,"count":3},{"year":2014,"count":3},{"year":2015,"count":6},{"year":2016,"count":6},{"year":2017,"count":11},{"year":2018,"count":3},{"year":2019,"count":3},{"year":2020,"count":3},{"year":2021,"count":3},{"year":2022,"count":3},{"year":2023,"count":2},{"year":2024,"count":3},{"year":2025,"count":3},{"year":2026,"count":1}],"oa_status":"gold","license":"cc-by","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://openepidemiologyjournal.com/VOLUME/5/PAGE/13/PDF/","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://openepidemiologyjournal.com/VOLUME/5/PAGE/13/PDF/","host_type":"GOLD"},{"url":"https://openepidemiologyjournal.com/VOLUME/5/PAGE/13/PDF/","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://openepidemiologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V5/TOEPIJ-5-13/TOEPIJ-5-13.pdf","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://openepidemiologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V5/TOEPIJ-5-13/TOEPIJ-5-13.xml","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874297101205010013","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23002407","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8VD78G5","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3446823","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.7916/d8vd78g5","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Urban Transport and Accessibility","Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet","Noise Effects and Management","Medicine","Environmental Science"],"mesh_terms":[],"keywords":["Odds ratio","Odds","Body mass index","Obesity","Logistic regression","Demography","Diagnostic odds ratio","Medicine","Statistics","Confidence interval","Mathematics","Internal medicine","Sociology"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Sustainable cities and communities"}],"linked_datasets":[{"doi":"10.7916/d8vd78g5","title":"At Odds: Concerns Raised by Using Odds Ratios for Continuous or Common Dichotomous Outcomes in Research on Physical Activity and Obesity","publisher":"Columbia University","resource_type":"Text"}],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-06-01T16:12:52.566257Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}