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....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAnnals of Clinical Epidemiology Vol. 7; no. 2; pp. 50 - 60
Main Authors Kawazoe, Yurika, Murata, Fumiko, Fukuda, Haruhisa, Maeda, Megumi, Sato, Shuntaro
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Japan Society for Clinical Epidemiology 01.04.2025
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2434-4338
2434-4338
DOI10.37737/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