Definitions Flashcards

(30 cards)

1
Q

Clinical Epidemiology

A
  • the basic science of EBM
  • study of distribution and determinants of health related states and events in specified populations, and the application of this study to control of health problems
  • using scientific methods to make predictions/improve pt outcomes
  • epidemiological concepts change over time (biostatistic concepts do not)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The 5 D’s

A

Death: bad outcome if untimely
Disease: set up symptoms, physical signs, lab abnormalities
Discomfort: symptoms such as pain, nausea, dyspnea, etc
Disability: impaired ability to go about usual activities
Dissatisfaction: emotional reaction to disease and its care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Prevalence vs. Incidence

A

P: current cases of outcome, proportion of total cases to total pop; burden of disease (how widespread the outcome is)
I: new cases, reflects risk of getting the disease; when time is in numerator is incidence rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Point Prevalence vs Period Prevalence

A

Point: time period is instantaneous
Period: longer time periods (but time not in the denominator)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cumulative Incidence

A

proportion of group that develops disease over a given period of time

= # new cases/# people at risk of developing disease over defined time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Incidence Rate and Incidence Density

A

IR: rate at which new disease has occurred in the population at risk per some unit time
ID: refers to IR in dynamic, changing pop in which ppl are under study and at risk for varying periods of time; number of cases over person-years

IR (ID) = # new cases/total time experienced by the pop at risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Systematic vs. Random Error

A

systematic: bias, compounding, within the study design, sometimes unavoidable; can differential (misclassification unevenly) or non-differential (bias toward the null)
random: occurs due to variations in people, in their responses; non-differential (ex: misclassification)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Epidemic
Outbreak&Pandemic
(epidemic curve)

A

increase in incidence of a disease in a community or region
O: small, in limited region, P: crosses many international boundaries
(a plot of the distribution of cases over time)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Endemic

A

the constant presence of a disease or infectious agent within a geographic area or pop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Absolute Risk, Absolute Risk Difference

A
AR = Incidence (I)
ARD = Iexposed - Iunexposed; describes someone's increased risk for a particular disease
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Relative Risk

A

RR = Iexposed / Iunexposed

  • evaluates the strength of an association btwn exposure and disease; relative to all other cases
  • aka risk ratio
  • value of 1 = no difference, >1 = greater risk,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Random vs Probability Samples

A

R: every person has an equal chance of being sampled
P: every person has a known, though not necessarily equal, chance of being sampled; can weight the sample toward some low frequency groups of interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Relative Risk

A

ratio of incidence in unexposed group to incidence in exposed group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Random Error vs Bias

A
  • random errors likely to cancel each other out as # of measurements increases (i.e. bigger sample size); bias will not
  • chance more likely to lead to type ii error; bias more likely to lad to type i
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Confounder

A
  • must meet three rules:
    1) must be associated with exposure
    2) must be independently associated with outcome
    3) must not be within a causal pathway btwn the exposure and the disease
  • distorts the association btwn exposure and outcome; Type I Error if distorts toward strengthening association; Type II Error if distorts toward weakening association
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Randomization

A

attempt to evenly distribute potential confounders; does not guarantee control of confounders

17
Q

Restriction

A

ex of smoking as confounder btwn alcohol consumption and lung cancer

  • prevents confounding but reduces study size –> could decrease statistical significance
  • cannot evaluate effect of excluded variable after restriction
18
Q

Stratification

A
  • data broken down (stratified) by the potential confounder –> removes the effect of the confounder
  • if confounding present: risk ratios in strata will be lower than in the unstratified data
  • if risk completely due to confounding: would be no diff in risk within the strata
19
Q

Matching

A
  • for each subject in exposed group, one or more subject (with or without confounder) is chosen for unexposed group
  • eliminates effect of confounder at individual level
  • has to be coupled with matched analysis
  • practical limitation on number of confounders to be matched on
  • once matched, the effect of the variable on outcomes cannot be evaluated
20
Q

Effect Modification

A
  • effect of confounding factor (ex of birth order, maternal age, and DS in 3D graph)
    = “interaction”
  • if stratum-specific risk ratios are DIFFERENT, its effect modification

-effect modifiers are variables that change the effect of exposure on risk of disease

21
Q

Multivariable Adjustment

A
  • allows us to look at multiple confounders simultaneously

- use regression analysis; if results are close to the null, know confounders are important

22
Q

Selection Bias

A
  • often in cohort studies
  • selective differences btwn comparison groups that impacts the relationship btwn exposure and outcome
  • often results from comparison groups NOT coming from same study base and NOT being representative of their pops

ex: “healthy worker effect”

23
Q

Self-Selection and Withdrawal Bias

A

SS: volunteers (ex: asbestos retrospective cohort study)
WB: loss to follow up, differential attrition leads to selection bias (“survivorship bias”)

both in cohort studies

24
Q

Information Bias

A
  • investigators who know exposure status (ex: radiologist looking at pt who’s a smoker)
  • subjects who know exposure status (may be more likely to report potential symptoms)
  • remedy: BLINDING
25
Sensitivity vs. Specificity
Sensitivity: pos when it should be pos = TP/ (TP+FN)
26
Alpha vs. Beta
A: our willingness to be wrong - our willingness to reject the null when we shouldn't, to make a Type I Error - usual convention is p =.05 (so we're 95% certain; willing to be wrong 1 in 20 times) B: our willingness to tolerate failure - to make a Type II Error - usual convention = .1 or .2 (so we're more willing to make a Type II Error than Type I), but sometimes not specified - if we want 80% power to reject null, our beta is 20%
27
Power
- ability to detect or verify a difference that is real, to avoid a Type II Error P = 1 - beta - if you reject null, then by definition, you cannot lack power (even if small sample size) - is the sensitivity of our study
28
T-Test
- compares the diff btwn the two means - divided by variability in the two samples T = (meanA-meanB)/(varA+varB)^.5 df = (nA-1) + (nB-1) - if we calculate t at less than the critical value (based on alpha and df), then we fail to reject the null - in a graph: the wider the curves, the less likely they'll be stat sig
29
Gaussian Distribution
"normal curve" bell shaped, symmetrical about the mean mean = median = mode 2/3 of observations fall within 1 SD of mean, about 95% within 2 SDs
30
What are the three criteria for determining whether an observation is abnormal?
1. is it unusual? 2. is it associated with disease? 3. does labeling and treating do more good than harm?