In 2010, there were 2,900 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed among women in Alabama and 200 new cases diagnosed among women in Alaska. Based on these data, is it accurate to say that the incidence rate of breast cancer is higher in Alabama than Alaska? Why or why not?
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
- Home
- Measures of Disease Question 10
Measures of Disease Question 10
Posted by
Anonymous
|
August 14, 2018
|
Labels:
250A,
250B,
beginner,
incidence,
intermediate,
measures of disease
|
No comments
Tags
- study designs (46)
- bias and confounding (31)
- measures of disease (31)
- measures of association (23)
- biostatistics review (20)
- confounding (20)
- bias (19)
- experimental studies (19)
- prevalence (19)
- trials (17)
- cohort studies (16)
- effect modification (14)
- person-time (14)
- incidence (13)
- case-control studies (12)
- incidence density (12)
- stratification (12)
- cumulative incidence (11)
- loss to followup (11)
- odds ratio (11)
- selection bias (11)
- Causal inference (10)
- causality (10)
- prospective/retrospective (8)
- randomization (8)
- rate ratio (8)
- risk ratio (8)
- screening (8)
- recall bias (7)
- power (6)
- sufficient-component cause model (6)
- Hill's criteria (5)
- information bias (5)
- 2x2 table (4)
- differential misclassification (4)
- hypothesis testing (4)
- masking (4)
- matching (4)
- misclassification bias (4)
- necessary cause (4)
- non-differential misclassification (4)
- sufficient cause (4)
- attributable risk/rate (3)
- blinding (3)
- chi-squared test (3)
- counterfactual (3)
- effectiveness (3)
- interviewer bias (3)
- mantel-haenszel measure of effect (3)
- population attributable risk (3)
- population attributable risk/rate percent (3)
- preventive trials (3)
- risk (3)
- sample size (3)
- sampling (3)
- standardization (3)
- statistical significance (3)
- study population (3)
- therapeutic trials (3)
- attributable rate (2)
- attributable risk (2)
- causal complement (2)
- cluster randomization (2)
- compliance (2)
- component cause (2)
- efficacy (2)
- equipoise (2)
- fixed/dynamic populations (2)
- mantel-haenszel odds ratio (2)
- minimum detectable effect (2)
- multivariable modeling (2)
- placebo (2)
- population controls (2)
- precision (2)
- primary/secondary study base (2)
- respondent bias (2)
- risk difference (2)
- sample size and power (2)
- steady state (2)
- study base principle (2)
- validity (2)
- DAG (1)
- IRB (1)
- additive interaction (1)
- additive/multiplicative scale (1)
- adherence (1)
- attributable risk % (1)
- backdoor pathway (1)
- berkson's bias (1)
- block randomization (1)
- case cohort sampling (1)
- causal-effect (1)
- community trials (1)
- concurrent/non-concurrent (1)
- confidence intervals (1)
- crossover trials (1)
- crude rate (1)
- double blind (1)
- eligibility (1)
- exchangeability (1)
- factorial study design (1)
- healthy worker bias (1)
- individual trials (1)
- informed consent (1)
- institutional review board (1)
- intention to treat (1)
- internal validity (1)
- interview bias (1)
- multiplicative interaction (1)
- multivariate modeling (1)
- nested case-control (1)
- non-collapsibility (1)
- non-missclassification bias (1)
- observer bias (1)
- odds (1)
- open/closed cohort (1)
- parallel trials (1)
- phases (1)
- population attributable risk/rate (1)
- prevention trials (1)
- primary outcomes (1)
- random error (1)
- rare disease assumption (1)
- rate (1)
- reference population (1)
- relative risk (1)
- residual confounding (1)
- results (1)
- risk set (1)
- run in period (1)
- secondary outcomes (1)
- sensitivity (1)
- sham (1)
- social-desirability bias (1)
- specific rate (1)
- specificity (1)
- stratified randomization (1)
- systematic error (1)
- target population (1)
- test of heterogeneity (1)
- treatment (1)
- type 1/ type 2 errors (1)
- validation (1)
