Estimation of the adjusted risk difference for very rare events, large samples, and extreme exposure frequency: Application of Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study data
BACKGROUNDThe post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences....
Saved in:
Published in | Annals of Clinical Epidemiology Vol. 7; no. 2; pp. 50 - 60 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Japan
Society for Clinical Epidemiology
01.04.2025
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2434-4338 2434-4338 |
DOI | 10.37737/ace.25007 |
Cover
Abstract | BACKGROUNDThe post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences. We evaluated the statistical performance of the adjusted risk difference and its variance under a post-authorization safety study’s settings (rare events, large sample, extreme exposure frequency).METHODSAdjusted risk differences were estimated using ordinary least squares estimators in a linear regression model with a binary outcome, and their variances were estimated using the standard error from ordinary least squares and four types of robust variance. In a simulation, we evaluated the risk differences’ performances using bias, coverage, and power and using data from the Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study as an example of an actual post-authorization safety study.RESULTSThe adjusted risk difference using ordinary least squares was not biased. Compared to the ordinary least squares’ standard error, the robust variance achieved more appropriate coverage and higher power. With actual data, including 2 × 2 tables of exposure and outcome with zero, both the ordinary least squares and robust variance could be estimated.CONCLUSIONSIn post-authorization safety study settings, the estimation of the risk difference using ordinary least squares and robust variance showed better performance than the typical ordinary least squares. These findings may prove beneficial for reporting risk difference in extreme settings such as post-authorization safety studies. |
---|---|
AbstractList | The post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences. We evaluated the statistical performance of the adjusted risk difference and its variance under a post-authorization safety study's settings (rare events, large sample, extreme exposure frequency).
Adjusted risk differences were estimated using ordinary least squares estimators in a linear regression model with a binary outcome, and their variances were estimated using the standard error from ordinary least squares and four types of robust variance. In a simulation, we evaluated the risk differences' performances using bias, coverage, and power and using data from the Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study as an example of an actual post-authorization safety study.
The adjusted risk difference using ordinary least squares was not biased. Compared to the ordinary least squares' standard error, the robust variance achieved more appropriate coverage and higher power. With actual data, including 2 × 2 tables of exposure and outcome with zero, both the ordinary least squares and robust variance could be estimated.
In post-authorization safety study settings, the estimation of the risk difference using ordinary least squares and robust variance showed better performance than the typical ordinary least squares. These findings may prove beneficial for reporting risk difference in extreme settings such as post-authorization safety studies. The post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences. We evaluated the statistical performance of the adjusted risk difference and its variance under a post-authorization safety study's settings (rare events, large sample, extreme exposure frequency).BACKGROUNDThe post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences. We evaluated the statistical performance of the adjusted risk difference and its variance under a post-authorization safety study's settings (rare events, large sample, extreme exposure frequency).Adjusted risk differences were estimated using ordinary least squares estimators in a linear regression model with a binary outcome, and their variances were estimated using the standard error from ordinary least squares and four types of robust variance. In a simulation, we evaluated the risk differences' performances using bias, coverage, and power and using data from the Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study as an example of an actual post-authorization safety study.METHODSAdjusted risk differences were estimated using ordinary least squares estimators in a linear regression model with a binary outcome, and their variances were estimated using the standard error from ordinary least squares and four types of robust variance. In a simulation, we evaluated the risk differences' performances using bias, coverage, and power and using data from the Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study as an example of an actual post-authorization safety study.The adjusted risk difference using ordinary least squares was not biased. Compared to the ordinary least squares' standard error, the robust variance achieved more appropriate coverage and higher power. With actual data, including 2 × 2 tables of exposure and outcome with zero, both the ordinary least squares and robust variance could be estimated.RESULTSThe adjusted risk difference using ordinary least squares was not biased. Compared to the ordinary least squares' standard error, the robust variance achieved more appropriate coverage and higher power. With actual data, including 2 × 2 tables of exposure and outcome with zero, both the ordinary least squares and robust variance could be estimated.In post-authorization safety study settings, the estimation of the risk difference using ordinary least squares and robust variance showed better performance than the typical ordinary least squares. These findings may prove beneficial for reporting risk difference in extreme settings such as post-authorization safety studies.CONCLUSIONSIn post-authorization safety study settings, the estimation of the risk difference using ordinary least squares and robust variance showed better performance than the typical ordinary least squares. These findings may prove beneficial for reporting risk difference in extreme settings such as post-authorization safety studies. BACKGROUNDThe post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a vaccination by estimating not only the risk ratio but also the risk difference. There are few reports of adjusted risk differences. We evaluated the statistical performance of the adjusted risk difference and its variance under a post-authorization safety study’s settings (rare events, large sample, extreme exposure frequency).METHODSAdjusted risk differences were estimated using ordinary least squares estimators in a linear regression model with a binary outcome, and their variances were estimated using the standard error from ordinary least squares and four types of robust variance. In a simulation, we evaluated the risk differences’ performances using bias, coverage, and power and using data from the Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study as an example of an actual post-authorization safety study.RESULTSThe adjusted risk difference using ordinary least squares was not biased. Compared to the ordinary least squares’ standard error, the robust variance achieved more appropriate coverage and higher power. With actual data, including 2 × 2 tables of exposure and outcome with zero, both the ordinary least squares and robust variance could be estimated.CONCLUSIONSIn post-authorization safety study settings, the estimation of the risk difference using ordinary least squares and robust variance showed better performance than the typical ordinary least squares. These findings may prove beneficial for reporting risk difference in extreme settings such as post-authorization safety studies. |
ArticleNumber | 25007 |
Author | Fukuda, Haruhisa Kawazoe, Yurika Murata, Fumiko Maeda, Megumi Sato, Shuntaro |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: Kawazoe, Yurika organization: Clinical Research Center, Nagasaki University Hospital – sequence: 1 fullname: Murata, Fumiko organization: Department of Health Care Administration and Management, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences – sequence: 1 fullname: Fukuda, Haruhisa organization: Center for Cohort Studies, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences – sequence: 1 fullname: Maeda, Megumi organization: Department of Health Care Administration and Management, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences – sequence: 1 fullname: Sato, Shuntaro organization: Clinical Research Center, Nagasaki University Hospital |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40226163$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9kctuEzEUhkeoiJbSDQ-AvERAii8Te6YSQlUVLlIFCyhb64znOHE68Qy2J20ejzfDTUooGxaWL-c7_2-d_2lx4HuPRfGc0VOhlFBvweApn1KqHhVHvBTlpBSiOnhwPixOYlxSSrlSjNbTJ8VhSTmXTIqj4tcsJreC5HpPekvSAgm0yzEmbElw8Zq0zloM6A0S2weyxrAhAQISXKNP8Q3pIMyRRFgNHeYr-JbgbQq4ysjt0McxszbgzzFrbM7I-TB0zuwNf4AxziOZZReTXNbEmFW-YLrpw7Xz853ilc-lEKEj38Bi2pCYxnZDWkjwrHhsoYt4cr8fF1cfZt8vPk0uv378fHF-OTFCUjXB0shW2qmUJa-xqpqm5ZY3EhQroZQNa2pFG4vtVFalmNJa2kpIqTgTpcK6FcfF653u6AfY3EDX6SHk0YWNZlRvs9A5C73NItPvd_QwNitsTZ5VgL8dPTj9b8W7hZ73a81YXXEpWFZ4ea8Q-jy8mPTKRYNdBx77MWrBqrrmjG3RFw_N9i5_Ys7Aqx1gQh9jQPv_r7_bwcuYYI57FEJypsMtqTS_W3f8_t0sIGj04jdRU9Oh |
Cites_doi | 10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7 10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00366-3 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 10.18637/jss.v095.i01 10.1214/07-STS227A 10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.069 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90191-0 10.1093/aje/kwm223 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002191 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00210-9 10.1056/NEJMoa2107659 10.1093/aje/kwaa044 10.18637/jss.v011.i10 10.1002/sim.8086 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology. 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology – notice: 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology. – notice: 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 5PM ADTOC UNPAY |
DOI | 10.37737/ace.25007 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Unpaywall for CDI: Periodical Content Unpaywall |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: UNPAY name: Unpaywall url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://unpaywall.org/ sourceTypes: Open Access Repository |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
DocumentTitleAlternate | THE ADJUSTED RD ESTIMATION FOR SPARSE DATA |
EISSN | 2434-4338 |
EndPage | 60 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10.37737/ace.25007 PMC11982631 40226163 10_37737_ace_25007 article_ace_7_2_7_25007_article_char_en |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS GROUPED_DOAJ JSF JSH M~E OK1 PGMZT RJT RPM RZJ AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 5PM ADTOC UNPAY |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3607-e4c6d6f566429e88bbd2f2b6a714a46b1b970bfed568435096f8366721347e9d3 |
IEDL.DBID | UNPAY |
ISSN | 2434-4338 |
IngestDate | Sun Sep 07 11:09:27 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:33:16 EDT 2025 Mon Apr 14 17:01:28 EDT 2025 Wed Apr 16 05:36:00 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 05:14:17 EDT 2025 Wed Sep 03 06:30:36 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 2 |
Keywords | adjusted risk difference ordinary least squares sparse data post-authorization vaccine safety study robust variance |
Language | English |
License | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2025 Society for Clinical Epidemiology. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons [Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International] license. cc-by-nc-nd |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3607-e4c6d6f566429e88bbd2f2b6a714a46b1b970bfed568435096f8366721347e9d3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://doi.org/10.37737/ace.25007 |
PMID | 40226163 |
PQID | 3189921131 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 11 |
ParticipantIDs | unpaywall_primary_10_37737_ace_25007 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11982631 proquest_miscellaneous_3189921131 pubmed_primary_40226163 crossref_primary_10_37737_ace_25007 jstage_primary_article_ace_7_2_7_25007_article_char_en |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2025-Apr-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-04-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2025 text: 2025-Apr-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | Japan |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Japan |
PublicationTitle | Annals of Clinical Epidemiology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Ann Clin Epidemiol |
PublicationYear | 2025 |
Publisher | Society for Clinical Epidemiology |
Publisher_xml | – name: Society for Clinical Epidemiology |
References | 3. MacDonald NE, SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33:4161–4164. 8. Long JS, Ervin LH. Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model. Am Stat. 2000;54:217–224. 17. Tan Z. Comment: Understanding or, PS and DR. Statistical Science. 2007;22:560–568. 2. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:881–889. 4. Vaccine Safety Datalink Publications. December 13, 2023. Accessed February 8, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/publications.html 5. Lipkind HS, Vazquez-Benitez G, Nordin JD, et al. Maternal and Infant Outcomes After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in the Periconceptional Period or During Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:599–608. 13. Morris TP, White IR, Crowther MJ. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med. 2019;38:2074–2102. 15. Ishiguro C, Mimura W, Murata F, et al. Development and application of a Japanese vaccine database for comparative assessments in the post-authorization phase: The Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety (VENUS) study. Vaccine. 2022;40:6179–6186. 12. Heath PT, Galiza EP, Baxter DN, et al. Safety and Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107659 10. Zeileis A. Econometric Computing with HC and HAC Covariance Matrix Estimators. J Stat Softw. 2004;11:1–17. 7. Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337–1344. 11. Cribari-Neto F. Asymptotic inference under heteroskedasticity of unknown form. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2004;45:215–233. 1. Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:931–939. 16. Miguel A. Hernán JMR. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020. 14. Zeileis A, Köll S, Graham N. Various Versatile Variances: An Object-Oriented Implementation of Clustered Covariances in R. J Stat Softw. 2020;95:1–36. 6. Naimi AI, Whitcomb BW. Estimating Risk Ratios and Risk Differences Using Regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189:508–510. 9. MacKinnon JG, White H. Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J Econom. 1985;29:305–325. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
References_xml | – reference: 11. Cribari-Neto F. Asymptotic inference under heteroskedasticity of unknown form. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2004;45:215–233. – reference: 10. Zeileis A. Econometric Computing with HC and HAC Covariance Matrix Estimators. J Stat Softw. 2004;11:1–17. – reference: 16. Miguel A. Hernán JMR. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020. – reference: 17. Tan Z. Comment: Understanding or, PS and DR. Statistical Science. 2007;22:560–568. – reference: 4. Vaccine Safety Datalink Publications. December 13, 2023. Accessed February 8, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/publications.html – reference: 15. Ishiguro C, Mimura W, Murata F, et al. Development and application of a Japanese vaccine database for comparative assessments in the post-authorization phase: The Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety (VENUS) study. Vaccine. 2022;40:6179–6186. – reference: 8. Long JS, Ervin LH. Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model. Am Stat. 2000;54:217–224. – reference: 3. MacDonald NE, SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33:4161–4164. – reference: 6. Naimi AI, Whitcomb BW. Estimating Risk Ratios and Risk Differences Using Regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189:508–510. – reference: 13. Morris TP, White IR, Crowther MJ. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med. 2019;38:2074–2102. – reference: 9. MacKinnon JG, White H. Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J Econom. 1985;29:305–325. – reference: 5. Lipkind HS, Vazquez-Benitez G, Nordin JD, et al. Maternal and Infant Outcomes After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in the Periconceptional Period or During Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:599–608. – reference: 1. Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:931–939. – reference: 2. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:881–889. – reference: 7. Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337–1344. – reference: 12. Heath PT, Galiza EP, Baxter DN, et al. Safety and Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107659 – reference: 14. Zeileis A, Köll S, Graham N. Various Versatile Variances: An Object-Oriented Implementation of Clustered Covariances in R. J Stat Softw. 2020;95:1–36. – ident: 9 doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7 – ident: 11 doi: 10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00366-3 – ident: 3 doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 – ident: 4 – ident: 14 doi: 10.18637/jss.v095.i01 – ident: 17 doi: 10.1214/07-STS227A – ident: 8 doi: 10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549 – ident: 16 – ident: 15 doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.069 – ident: 2 doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90191-0 – ident: 7 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm223 – ident: 5 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002191 – ident: 1 doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00210-9 – ident: 12 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107659 – ident: 6 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa044 – ident: 10 doi: 10.18637/jss.v011.i10 – ident: 13 doi: 10.1002/sim.8086 |
SSID | ssj0002771095 |
Score | 2.2908726 |
Snippet | BACKGROUNDThe post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to... The post-authorization safety study of a vaccine is an important public health task, and its results contribute to the decisions about whether to recommend a... |
SourceID | unpaywall pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref jstage |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 50 |
SubjectTerms | adjusted risk difference ordinary least squares Original post-authorization vaccine safety study robust variance sparse data |
Title | Estimation of the adjusted risk difference for very rare events, large samples, and extreme exposure frequency: Application of Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety study data |
URI | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ace/7/2/7_25007/_article/-char/en https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40226163 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3189921131 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC11982631 https://doi.org/10.37737/ace.25007 |
UnpaywallVersion | publishedVersion |
Volume | 7 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
ispartofPNX | Annals of Clinical Epidemiology, 2025/04/01, Vol.7(2), pp.50-60 |
journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 2434-4338 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0002771095 issn: 2434-4338 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20190101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVAQN databaseName: PubMed Central customDbUrl: eissn: 2434-4338 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0002771095 issn: 2434-4338 databaseCode: RPM dateStart: 20210101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ providerName: National Library of Medicine |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1bb9MwFLamDgEv3BnhMh1gj0tJ4tROeKumTRPSKiQoGk-RHduDrUqrtREq_45_xjlxEtaBJh6qqK3jxPKxz3dunxnbQxWEuE2ZMEU0EKZJrEKl-ShMSqFMZJKRseSHPJmI42n64XR0usXedLUwV-L3XEou36nSDlFNU8H4tqAg0oBtTycfx1_p1LiUp1Tyk3ne0Ws3bGiaW-cIts7sv3Dk3-mQd-pqodY_1Gx2Rdcc3WcH3Vv6FJOLYb3Sw_LnNQLHm4fxgN1roSaMvWw8ZFu2esRun7TB9Mfs1yEub1-5CHMHiARBmfOa_J9AGefQHZ5SWkBoCyj0a0Db2kLD-rTchxmlkcNSEcMwflWVAdzryeOI18WcnI_gLn2y9vo9jP8Ey-mBX1RJLwKeQLnddfdh4hPTUaX6HtvUERzJJ-Xsag0NIy5QausTNj06_HxwHLYnOoQlF5EMbVoKIxxCSFSDNsu0NolLtFAyTlUqdKxzGWlnzUhkiOPQvHIZF0IS7Zy0ueFP2aCaV_YZA8djQ_6rTMcmNULlKlaJRNGKnCmljQL2tpv9YuGJOwo0eJrZKHA2imY2Aia8YPRt2gXbNJFFQh9q2P9OxXC4owTsdSdIBS5IirKoys7rZYGbZJ6jWc3jgO14weo7R2MdLVbBA5ZtiFzfgMi-N_-pvn9rSL_jOEdLkDrd66XzhoE9_79mL9jdhA40blKRXrLB6rK2rxBlrfRu4_jabRfbb2fSK58 |
linkProvider | Unpaywall |
linkToUnpaywall | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1bb9MwFD6aOgS8cL-Emw6wx6U0cWonvFXTpglpFRIUjafIjh1gVGm1NkLl3_HPOCdOwjrQxEMVtXWcWD72-c7tM8AeqSDCbdqGCaGBMIkjHWojxmFcSG1HNh5bx37Ik6k8niXvTsenO_Cqq4W5EL8XSgn1RhduSGqaC8Z3JQeRBrA7m76ffOZT4xKRcMlP6nlHL92wpWmunRHY-uL-hSP_Toe8UVdLvfmh5_MLuuboNhx0b-lTTL4P67UZFj8vEThePYw7cKuFmjjxsnEXdlx1D66ftMH0-_DrkJa3r1zERYmEBFHbs5r9n8gZ59gdnlI4JGiLJPQbJNvaYcP6tNrHOaeR40ozwzB91ZVF2uvZ40jX5YKdj1ie-2TtzVuc_AmW8wM_6YJfBD2Bcrvr7uPUJ6aTSvU9tqkjNJIPunTrDTaMuMiprQ9gdnT48eA4bE90CAshRyp0SSGtLAlCkhp0aWqMjcvYSK2iRCfSRCZTI1M6O5Yp4Tgyr8pUSKmYdk65zIqHMKgWlXsMWIrIsv8qNZFNrNSZjnSsSLRGpS2UGwXwupv9fOmJO3IyeJrZyGk28mY2ApBeMPo27YJtmqg85g837H_nYjjaUQJ42QlSTguSoyy6cot6ldMmmWVkVosogEdesPrOyVgni1WKANItkesbMNn39j_Vt68N6XcUZWQJcqd7vXReMbAn_9fsKdyM-UDjJhXpGQzW57V7TihrbV60y-w3Z2Yqjw |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Estimation+of+the+adjusted+risk+difference+for+very+rare+events%2C+large+samples%2C+and+extreme+exposure+frequency%3A+Application+of+Vaccine+Effectiveness%2C+Networking%2C+and+Universal+Safety+study+data&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Clinical+Epidemiology&rft.au=Kawazoe%2C+Yurika&rft.au=Murata%2C+Fumiko&rft.au=Fukuda%2C+Haruhisa&rft.au=Maeda%2C+Megumi&rft.date=2025-04-01&rft.pub=Society+for+Clinical+Epidemiology&rft.eissn=2434-4338&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=50&rft.epage=60&rft_id=info:doi/10.37737%2Face.25007&rft.externalDocID=article_ace_7_2_7_25007_article_char_en |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2434-4338&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2434-4338&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2434-4338&client=summon |