Statistical Methods in Medical Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0962280207084156v1
0962280207084156v2
0962280207084156v3    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maiti, T.
Right arrow Articles by Pradhan, V.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maiti, T.
Right arrow Articles by Pradhan, V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on March 28, 2008, doi:10.1177/0962280207084156
This version was published on April 15, 2008


Article

A comparative study of the bias corrected estimates in logistic regression

Tapabrata Maiti1 and Vivek Pradhan2*

1 Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, IA, USA
2 Cytel Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.


   Abstract

Logistic regression is frequently used in many areas of applied statistics. The maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the logistic regression parameters are usually computed using the iterative Newton-Raphson method. It is well known that these estimates are biased. Several methods are proposed to correct the bias of these estimates. Among them Firth (1993) and Cordeiro and McCullagh (1991) proposed two promising methods. The conditional exact method (CMLE) is popular for small-sample estimates, and is available in many software packages. In this article we compare these methods in terms of their bias. In general, our extensive simulations show that the methods proposed by Cordeiro and McCullagh and by Firth work well, though Cordeiro and McCullagh is slightly better in our simulations. In case of separation, Firth or CMLE can be used; however, a judicious approach is required when there is a wide variation in results. Two real data analyses are given exhibiting these properties. The data analysis also includes bootstrap results.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?