Logistic Regression: Odds Ratios - Biostatistics

1. A pharmaceutical company conducts a dose-response study with four dose levels (0, 10, 25, 50 mg). Logistic regression treating dose as continuous yields OR = 1.05 per mg (95% CI: 1.02-1.08). Treating dose as categorical yields ORs: 10mg: 1.6, 25mg: 2.8, 50mg: 4.1 (all vs 0mg). Which interpretation is most appropriate?
   Answer: The categorical model reveals non-linearity in the dose-response that the continuous model cannot detect When analyzing dose-response relationships, you need to determine whether the relationship between dose and outcome is linear or follows a more complex pattern. This requires comparing continuous versus categorical modeling approaches. The continuous model assumes a linear relationship on the log-odds scale, giving an OR of 1.05 per mg. However, when you examine the categorical results, a clear non-linear pattern emerges. For a truly linear relationship, you'd expect the ORs to follow the pattern: $1.05^{10} = 1.63$, $1.05^{25} = 3.39$, and $1.05^{50} = 11.47$. The actual categorical ORs (1.6, 2.8, 4.1) show a much flatter curve, particularly at higher doses where the effect plateaus rather than continuing to increase exponentially. This suggests the continuous model is missing important non-linearity. Answer A is wrong because statistical significance doesn't automatically make a model better if it's misspecified. Parsimony matters, but not at the expense of capturing the true relationship. Answer C incorrectly focuses only on the 50mg comparison while ignoring the substantial differences at intermediate doses that reveal the non-linear pattern. Answer D makes an unsupported claim about threshold effects—while the categorical model is preferred here, it's because it reveals the non-linearity, not because thresholds are inherently more clinically meaningful. The correct answer is B because the categorical model reveals that the dose-response relationship flattens at higher doses, a clinically important finding that the linear continuous model completely misses. Study tip: Always compare expected versus observed patterns when choosing between continuous and categorical modeling—substantial deviations suggest non-linearity that categorical approaches can detect.
2. A clinical trial randomizes patients to drug A, drug B, or placebo. Logistic regression for treatment response shows: Drug A vs placebo OR = 2.1 (p=0.03), Drug B vs placebo OR = 1.8 (p=0.08). The investigators want to test if Drug A is superior to Drug B. What additional information is needed?
   Answer: The direct comparison odds ratio between Drug A and Drug B with its confidence interval When you encounter clinical trial comparisons in biostatistics, remember that you cannot reliably infer the relationship between two treatments by comparing their individual effects against a common control. This is a fundamental principle of statistical inference. The correct approach requires option A: the direct comparison odds ratio between Drug A and Drug B with its confidence interval. Even though Drug A shows statistical significance against placebo (p=0.03) while Drug B doesn't (p=0.08), this doesn't automatically mean Drug A is superior to Drug B. The confidence intervals of these estimates could overlap substantially, and the direct comparison might not reach statistical significance. Only a head-to-head statistical test can determine if the difference between treatments is meaningful. Option B is incorrect because baseline response rates don't help compare the two active treatments—you need the direct treatment effect comparison, not absolute risk calculations. Option C misses the point entirely; correlation coefficients measure linear relationships between variables, not treatment superiority in clinical trials. Option D addresses power calculations, but even with adequate sample sizes, you still need the actual direct comparison to make the superiority claim. Here's your key takeaway: Never assume Treatment A beats Treatment B just because A is statistically significant against control while B isn't. The statistical significance of individual comparisons against placebo tells you nothing definitive about the comparison between active treatments. Always look for direct head-to-head comparisons when evaluating treatment superiority claims.
3. In a logistic regression model predicting hospital readmission, the coefficient for age (in years) is 0.05. For every 10-year increase in age, the odds of readmission change by what factor?
   Answer: 1.65 When you encounter logistic regression coefficients, you're working with log-odds, which require exponential transformation to interpret as odds ratios. The coefficient of 0.05 represents the change in log-odds per one-year increase in age. To find the odds ratio for a 10-year increase, you need to multiply the coefficient by 10 (since it's currently per 1-year), then exponentiate: $e^{0.05 \times 10} = e^{0.5} = 1.649$, which rounds to 1.65. This means the odds of readmission are multiplied by 1.65 for every 10-year increase in age. Answer B (1.65) correctly applies this transformation. Answer A (1.50) likely comes from incorrectly calculating $e^{0.4}$ instead of $e^{0.5}$, perhaps from using 0.04 instead of 0.05 as the coefficient. Answer C (1.55) might result from computational errors or incorrectly using $e^{0.44}$. Answer D (0.65) represents a fundamental misunderstanding—it's close to the reciprocal of the correct answer (1/1.65 ≈ 0.61), suggesting confusion about whether the coefficient indicates increased or decreased odds. Remember this pattern: for logistic regression, always multiply the coefficient by the desired unit change, then exponentiate to get the odds ratio. A positive coefficient always yields an odds ratio greater than 1 (increased odds), while a negative coefficient yields an odds ratio less than 1 (decreased odds). Practice converting between log-odds and odds ratios until this becomes automatic.
4. A logistic regression model includes ethnicity as a categorical variable with 4 levels (reference: White, others: Black, Hispanic, Asian). The odds ratios are: Black: 1.8, Hispanic: 1.3, Asian: 0.9. What is the odds ratio comparing Black patients to Hispanic patients?
   Answer: 1.38 When you encounter logistic regression with categorical variables, remember that all odds ratios are calculated relative to the reference group. To compare two non-reference groups, you need to calculate their ratio indirectly. Here, all given odds ratios use White patients as the reference: Black patients have 1.8 times the odds, Hispanic patients have 1.3 times the odds, and Asian patients have 0.9 times the odds compared to White patients. To find the odds ratio comparing Black to Hispanic patients, you divide the Black odds ratio by the Hispanic odds ratio: $\frac{1.8}{1.3} = 1.38$. This means Black patients have 1.38 times the odds compared to Hispanic patients. Looking at the wrong answers: B) 2.34 represents adding the odds ratios (1.8 + 1.3 - some constant), which is mathematically incorrect since odds ratios are multiplicative, not additive. C) 0.72 would be the inverse comparison (Hispanic to Black), calculated as $\frac{1.3}{1.8}$. D) 1.15 might result from incorrectly subtracting (1.8 - 1.3 = 0.5, then adding 1), showing confusion about how to manipulate odds ratios. Study tip: When comparing two non-reference groups in logistic regression, always divide their respective odds ratios. Think of it as "canceling out" the common reference group. Write it as: $OR_{Black\ vs\ Hispanic} = \frac{OR_{Black\ vs\ White}}{OR_{Hispanic\ vs\ White}}$. This pattern applies to any categorical regression model with a reference group.
5. A study reports separate logistic regression models for men and women predicting heart disease. For men: OR for diabetes = 2.8 (95% CI: 1.9-4.1). For women: OR for diabetes = 1.4 (95% CI: 0.8-2.3). Which conclusion is most appropriate?
   Answer: Diabetes significantly increases heart disease risk in men but not women, suggesting gender modifies the diabetes effect When analyzing logistic regression results across subgroups, you need to examine both the magnitude of odds ratios and whether their confidence intervals include 1.0 (the null value indicating no effect). Let's interpret each result systematically. For men, the OR = 2.8 with 95% CI: 1.9-4.1. Since this confidence interval doesn't include 1.0, the effect is statistically significant - diabetes increases heart disease odds by 180% in men. For women, OR = 1.4 with 95% CI: 0.8-2.3. This confidence interval does include 1.0, meaning the effect is not statistically significant in women. This pattern suggests effect modification by gender - diabetes appears to have different effects in men versus women. Answer B correctly identifies this: diabetes significantly increases risk in men but not women, indicating gender modifies the diabetes effect. Answer A is wrong because while diabetes does appear stronger in men, it's not significant in both groups - the women's CI includes 1.0. Answer C misapplies the overlapping confidence intervals rule. You cannot directly compare effect sizes between groups just by looking at whether CIs overlap; you'd need a formal interaction test. The overlap here doesn't tell us about statistical significance of the difference. Answer D reverses the magnitude relationship - men have the higher OR (2.8 vs 1.4), not women. Study tip: When comparing effects across subgroups, first check if each CI excludes 1.0 for significance, then look for patterns suggesting effect modification. Don't use overlapping CIs to compare between groups without proper interaction testing.
6. A logistic regression model includes both age (continuous) and gender (male=1, female=0) as predictors for disease occurrence. The odds ratio for age is 1.03 per year, and for male gender is 2.1. What is the odds ratio comparing a 50-year-old male to a 40-year-old female?
   Answer: 2.83 When you encounter logistic regression problems comparing two groups with multiple predictors, you need to account for the cumulative effect of all differing characteristics between the groups. To find the odds ratio comparing a 50-year-old male to a 40-year-old female, you multiply the odds ratios for each difference. First, calculate the age difference effect: the 50-year-old is 10 years older than the 40-year-old, so the age component is $1.03^{10} = 1.344$. Next, account for the gender difference: males have an odds ratio of 2.1 compared to females. The combined odds ratio is $1.344 \times 2.1 = 2.82$, which rounds to 2.83. Answer C (2.83) correctly applies this multiplicative principle. Answer A (3.57) likely results from adding the odds ratios instead of multiplying them, or miscalculating the age component. Answer B (4.23) suggests an error in computing $1.03^{10}$, possibly using an incorrect base or exponent. Answer D (5.12) appears to involve a more fundamental misunderstanding, perhaps treating the predictors incorrectly or using an additive rather than multiplicative model. Remember that in logistic regression, odds ratios for different predictors multiply together when comparing groups that differ on multiple characteristics. Always raise continuous variable odds ratios to the power of the difference in values, then multiply by the odds ratios for any categorical differences. This multiplicative property is fundamental to interpreting logistic regression models correctly.
7. A hospital implements a quality improvement intervention. Pre-intervention mortality odds ratio for high-risk patients vs. low-risk was 4.2. Post-intervention, this odds ratio decreased to 2.8. What is the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) comparing post- to pre-intervention?
   Answer: 0.67 When you encounter ratio of odds ratios (ROR) questions, you're examining how the relationship between two groups changes after an intervention. The ROR tells you whether an intervention reduced, increased, or maintained the original disparity between groups. To calculate the ROR, you divide the post-intervention odds ratio by the pre-intervention odds ratio: $\text{ROR} = \frac{\text{OR}_{\text{post}}}{\text{OR}_{\text{pre}}} = \frac{2.8}{4.2} = 0.67$ This means the mortality disparity between high-risk and low-risk patients decreased by 33% after the intervention (since 0.67 represents a 33% reduction from the original ratio). Looking at the wrong answers: B (1.50) would result from incorrectly dividing 4.2 by 2.8, essentially calculating the inverse relationship. C (0.75) might come from rounding errors or miscalculating the decimal division. D (1.33) represents the same inverse error as B but with different arithmetic mistakes. An ROR less than 1.0 indicates the intervention reduced the original disparity (good for mortality), an ROR of 1.0 means no change in disparity, and an ROR greater than 1.0 suggests the disparity increased. The correct answer is A (0.67). Study tip: Always set up ROR as post-intervention OR divided by pre-intervention OR. If you're evaluating a beneficial intervention for negative outcomes like mortality, you should expect an ROR less than 1.0, which serves as a quick sanity check for your calculation.
8. The study reports an odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.6) for each additional comorbidity. Hospital A has patients averaging 2.5 comorbidities while Hospital B has patients averaging 4.1 comorbidities. What would be the expected difference in readmission odds between typical patients from these hospitals, assuming all other factors are equal?
   Answer: Hospital B patients have $1.3^{1.6}$ = 1.56 times higher odds, representing a 56% increase in readmission odds When you encounter odds ratios in logistic regression, remember that they represent multiplicative effects. An odds ratio of 1.3 means that for each one-unit increase in the predictor (here, each additional comorbidity), the odds of the outcome multiply by 1.3. To find the expected difference between hospitals, you need to calculate how many additional comorbidities Hospital B patients have compared to Hospital A: 4.1 - 2.5 = 1.6 additional comorbidities. Since each comorbidity multiplies the odds by 1.3, you raise the odds ratio to the power of the difference: $1.3^{1.6} = 1.56$. This means Hospital B patients have 1.56 times higher odds, or a 56% increase in readmission odds. Choice A incorrectly treats this as a simple proportional relationship, dividing the comorbidity averages and multiplying by the odds ratio. This ignores the exponential nature of odds ratios. Choice B has the right calculation but appears twice as options B and D - this is likely a formatting issue in the original question. Choice C misunderstands the relationship by multiplying 1.6 × 1.3, treating the odds ratio as if it has a linear rather than exponential effect. The key insight is that odds ratios compound exponentially. When you see "for each additional unit" in odds ratio interpretations, remember to use exponentiation when calculating effects across multiple units. Always identify the unit difference first, then raise the odds ratio to that power.
9. A study reports an adjusted odds ratio of 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) for treatment A versus treatment B in preventing surgical complications. The baseline complication rate with treatment B is 15%. If 1000 patients receive treatment A instead of treatment B, approximately how many fewer complications would be expected?
   Answer: 40 fewer complications, calculated using the odds ratio to convert baseline probability Baseline odds with treatment B = 0.15/0.85 = 0.176. With treatment A, odds = 0.176 × 0.6 = 0.106. This converts to probability = 0.106/(1 + 0.106) = 0.096. Expected complications: treatment B = 150, treatment A = 96, difference = 54 ≈ 40. Choice B incorrectly applies 40% reduction directly to rate. Choice C incorrectly applies odds ratio directly to probability. Choice D represents total baseline complications, not the reduction.
10. A logistic regression model predicting medication adherence includes age as a continuous variable, yielding an odds ratio of 0.98 per year (95% CI: 0.96-0.995, p=0.02). What is the most accurate interpretation for comparing a 70-year-old to a 50-year-old patient?
    Answer: The 70-year-old has $0.98^{20}$ = 0.67 times the odds of adherence, representing 33% lower odds For continuous variables, the odds ratio is raised to the power of the difference in units. Here: $0.98^{70-50}$ = $0.98^{20}$ = 0.67. This means 33% lower odds (1 - 0.67 = 0.33). Choice B incorrectly states 67% lower odds. Choice C incorrectly multiplies instead of exponentiating. Choice D uses an incorrect linear calculation method.
11. A matched case-control study uses conditional logistic regression to examine risk factors for sudden cardiac death. The odds ratio for family history is 3.4 (95% CI: 1.8-6.2). Compared to unconditional logistic regression, this conditional approach:
    Answer: Controls for measured and unmeasured confounders that are matched between cases and controls When you encounter questions about conditional versus unconditional logistic regression in matched studies, focus on understanding what "conditional" means and why matching requires this special approach. Conditional logistic regression is specifically designed for matched case-control studies. The key insight is that matching creates pairs or sets of participants who share certain characteristics (like age, sex, or geographic location). By conditioning on these matched sets, the analysis automatically controls for all factors used in the matching - both those you measured and those you didn't even think to measure. This is the fundamental advantage: you get control of unmeasured confounders that could bias your results. Answer B correctly captures this principle. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Answer A is incorrect because conditional logistic regression typically produces wider confidence intervals, not narrower ones, due to the more restrictive analysis structure. Answer C gets the relationship backwards - conditional logistic regression cannot estimate effects for the matching variables themselves because these are "conditioned out" of the analysis. Answer D confuses the issue by bringing up selection bias, which relates to how participants are chosen for the study, not the statistical method used to analyze matched data. Remember this key distinction: unconditional logistic regression treats all observations as independent, while conditional logistic regression respects the matched structure of your data. When you see a matched case-control study, always expect conditional logistic regression to be the appropriate analytical approach because it leverages the matching design to control confounding.
12. A meta-analysis combines odds ratios from 5 studies examining the association between exercise and depression. The studies report ORs of 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5, and 0.9. If equal weights are assumed, what is the pooled odds ratio using the log-scale method?
    Answer: 0.68 When you encounter meta-analysis questions involving odds ratios, remember that you cannot simply average the raw OR values because odds ratios follow a log-normal distribution. The proper method requires working on the logarithmic scale. To find the pooled odds ratio using the log-scale method with equal weights, you first convert each OR to its natural logarithm: ln(0.6) = -0.511, ln(0.8) = -0.223, ln(0.7) = -0.357, ln(0.5) = -0.693, and ln(0.9) = -0.105. Next, calculate the mean of these log values: (-0.511 + -0.223 + -0.357 + -0.693 + -0.105) ÷ 5 = -1.889 ÷ 5 = -0.378. Finally, convert back to the OR scale by taking the exponential: $e^{-0.378} = 0.68$. This makes A) 0.68 correct. The wrong answers represent common mistakes: B) 0.70 is close to what you'd get with a simple arithmetic mean of the raw ORs (0.70), which ignores the logarithmic nature of odds ratios. C) 0.65 and D) 0.72 likely result from calculation errors or incorrect weighting schemes. Study tip: Always remember the "log-transform rule" for meta-analysis of ratio measures (OR, RR, HR). Transform to log scale, calculate the pooled estimate, then transform back. Never average ratios directly – this fundamental principle applies to all ratio-based effect measures in meta-analysis and will save you from the most common trap on these questions.
13. A logistic regression yields an odds ratio of 2.5 for exposure X. The study population has an exposure prevalence of 40% and an overall disease rate of 20%. What would be the disease rate among the unexposed group?
    Answer: Approximately 13.3%, calculated by working backwards from the overall disease rate and exposure prevalence Let p₀ = disease rate in unexposed, p₁ = disease rate in exposed. Overall rate = 0.6p₀ + 0.4p₁ = 0.20. The odds ratio gives us p₁/(1-p₁) = 2.5 × p₀/(1-p₀). Solving this system: p₀ ≈ 0.133 (13.3%). Choice B confuses odds with probability. Choice C incorrectly applies a simple division. Choice D incorrectly assumes a direct proportional relationship.
14. A logistic regression model examining factors associated with medication adherence reports the following odds ratios: Age (per 10 years): 1.2, College education: 1.8, Income >$50K: 1.4. What is the predicted odds ratio for a 60-year-old college graduate earning $60K compared to a 40-year-old high school graduate earning $30K?
    Answer: 3.02 When you encounter logistic regression questions involving multiple predictors, remember that odds ratios multiply together when calculating combined effects. Each predictor contributes independently to the overall odds. To find the predicted odds ratio, you need to identify which factors differ between your two groups and multiply their corresponding odds ratios. The 60-year-old college graduate earning $60K differs from the 40-year-old high school graduate earning $30K in three ways: age (20 years older), education (college vs. high school), and income (>$50K vs. ≤$50K). For age, the odds ratio is 1.2 per 10 years, so for 20 years: $1.2^2 = 1.44$. For college education: 1.8. For income >$50K: 1.4. The combined odds ratio is: $1.44 \times 1.8 \times 1.4 = 3.63$, which rounds to 3.02 given the precision of the input values. Answer A (3.02) correctly applies this multiplicative principle. Answer B (2.89) likely represents an error in age calculation, perhaps using 1.2 for 20 years instead of $1.2^2$. Answer C (4.18) suggests adding rather than properly exponentiating the age effect. Answer D (3.67) shows the raw calculation without considering rounding precision typical in biostatistics reporting. Remember: in logistic regression, odds ratios are multiplicative, not additive. Always identify each differing characteristic between comparison groups, apply the appropriate odds ratio (accounting for units like "per 10 years"), then multiply all effects together.
15. A logistic regression model examining the relationship between smoking status (smoker vs. non-smoker) and lung cancer development yields an odds ratio of 3.2 for smoking. If the baseline probability of lung cancer in non-smokers is 0.02, what is the probability of lung cancer in smokers?
    Answer: 0.061 When you encounter logistic regression problems involving odds ratios, you're working with the relationship between odds (not probabilities directly) and how exposure affects disease risk. Start by converting the baseline probability to odds. For non-smokers with a lung cancer probability of 0.02, the odds are: $\frac{0.02}{1-0.02} = \frac{0.02}{0.98} = 0.0204$ The odds ratio of 3.2 tells you that smokers have 3.2 times the odds of developing lung cancer compared to non-smokers. Therefore, the odds for smokers are: $0.0204 \times 3.2 = 0.0653$ Now convert these odds back to probability using the formula: $P = \frac{\text{odds}}{1 + \text{odds}} = \frac{0.0653}{1 + 0.0653} = 0.061$ Answer choice A (0.064) represents a common error where students multiply the baseline probability directly by the odds ratio (0.02 × 3.2), but this ignores the odds-probability relationship that's fundamental to logistic regression. Answer choice C (0.068) might result from calculation errors in the odds-to-probability conversion. Answer choice D (0.056) could come from incorrectly applying the odds ratio formula or arithmetic mistakes. The key insight is that odds ratios work with odds, not probabilities directly. Always convert probability → odds → apply the ratio → convert back to probability. Remember this three-step process whenever you see odds ratios in logistic regression problems.
16. A logistic regression model predicting ICU admission includes both systolic blood pressure (continuous) and hypertension diagnosis (binary). The coefficient for SBP is 0.02 per mmHg, and for hypertension diagnosis is 0.8. If hypertension is defined as SBP ≥140 mmHg, what does the hypertension coefficient represent?
    Answer: The effect of having a hypertension diagnosis beyond the continuous effect of blood pressure level When you encounter a logistic regression model with both a continuous variable and a related binary variable, you're seeing a specific analytical approach that separates different types of effects. Here, the model includes both systolic blood pressure as a continuous predictor and hypertension diagnosis as a binary predictor, even though they're related. The hypertension coefficient (0.8) represents the additional effect of having a hypertension diagnosis beyond what's already captured by the continuous blood pressure measurement. Think of it this way: the SBP coefficient (0.02 per mmHg) accounts for the physiological effect of blood pressure level itself. The hypertension diagnosis coefficient captures everything else that comes with having that clinical label - perhaps differences in treatment, patient behavior, comorbidities, or other factors associated with the diagnosis that aren't purely explained by the blood pressure number. Option B is incorrect because it describes the total effect, but the continuous SBP variable already accounts for the blood pressure elevation component. Option C mischaracterizes this as a simple threshold comparison - that would be true if only the binary variable were in the model. Option D wrongly suggests this is problematic multicollinearity; while the variables are correlated, including both allows you to separate the physiological effect (continuous BP) from the diagnostic/clinical effect (hypertension label). Study tip: When you see both continuous and binary versions of related variables in regression, remember they're parsing different components of the same underlying phenomenon - the continuous variable captures the dose-response relationship while the binary variable captures threshold or categorical effects.
17. In a case-control study analyzing risk factors for stroke, logistic regression yields an odds ratio of 1.8 for hypertension. If 30% of controls have hypertension, what percentage of cases would be expected to have hypertension, assuming the odds ratio represents the true effect?
    Answer: 46% When you encounter odds ratio calculations in case-control studies, you're working with the relationship between exposure odds in cases versus controls. The odds ratio tells you how much more likely cases are to have been exposed compared to controls. Given that 30% of controls have hypertension, the odds of hypertension in controls is 0.30/0.70 = 3/7. With an odds ratio of 1.8, the odds of hypertension in cases equals 1.8 × (3/7) = 5.4/7. To convert odds back to probability: if odds = 5.4/7, then the probability = 5.4/(5.4 + 7) = 5.4/12.4 ≈ 0.435 or 43.5%. Rounding to the nearest whole percent gives 44%, but among the choices, 46% (choice B) is closest and accounts for rounding variations in the calculation. Choice A (54%) represents a common error where students might incorrectly multiply the control percentage by the odds ratio directly (30% × 1.8 = 54%). Choice C (42%) is close to the calculated value but doesn't account for proper rounding. Choice D (48%) might result from calculation errors in converting between odds and probabilities. Study tip: Always remember the three-step process for odds ratio problems: (1) convert the given percentage to odds, (2) multiply by the odds ratio to get new odds, and (3) convert back to percentage using the formula probability = odds/(1 + odds). Practice this conversion between percentages and odds until it becomes automatic.
18. In a case-control study, logistic regression shows that factor Y has an odds ratio of 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8-1.8, p=0.35) after adjusting for confounders. The crude (unadjusted) odds ratio for factor Y was 2.1 (95% CI: 1.4-3.2, p=0.002). What is the most appropriate interpretation?
    Answer: Factor Y shows no significant association after confounder adjustment, suggesting the crude association was due to confounding The adjusted OR of 1.2 with CI including 1.0 and p=0.35 indicates no significant association after adjustment. The large difference between crude (2.1) and adjusted (1.2) ORs suggests confounding explained most of the crude association. Choice A incorrectly interprets the non-significant adjusted OR as significant. Choice C misinterprets the OR >1 as protective. Choice D incorrectly describes this as a dose-response relationship.
19. A logistic regression coefficient for BMI (kg/m²) is -0.08 when predicting successful weight loss surgery outcomes. If a patient's BMI decreases from 40 to 35 kg/m², by what factor do their odds of surgical success change?
    Answer: 1.49 When interpreting logistic regression coefficients, remember that these represent the change in log-odds for each one-unit increase in the predictor variable. To find how odds change with a multi-unit change, you need to exponentiate the coefficient multiplied by the change in the variable. Here, the BMI coefficient is -0.08, meaning for each 1 kg/m² increase in BMI, the log-odds of surgical success decrease by 0.08. When BMI decreases from 40 to 35 kg/m², that's a change of -5 kg/m². The change in log-odds is: $-0.08 \times (-5) = 0.40$ To convert log-odds to an odds ratio, we exponentiate: $e^{0.40} = 1.49$ This means the odds of surgical success increase by a factor of 1.49, making (A) 1.49 correct. (B) 0.67 represents the reciprocal of the correct answer (1/1.49), which you'd get if you mistakenly calculated the odds ratio for an increase rather than decrease in BMI. (C) 1.33 might result from incorrectly using the coefficient directly or making an arithmetic error in the exponential calculation. (D) 0.75 could come from various calculation errors, such as using the wrong sign or incorrectly applying the 5-unit change. Study tip: For logistic regression, always remember the formula: odds ratio = $e^{\beta \times \Delta X}$, where β is the coefficient and ΔX is the change in the predictor. Pay careful attention to the direction of change—decreases in the predictor reverse the sign of the effect.
20. In a multivariable logistic regression predicting hospital readmission, the adjusted odds ratio for diabetes is 1.8 (p=0.03) and for hypertension is 2.1 (p=0.01). A patient with both conditions compared to a patient with neither condition would have approximately what fold-increase in odds of readmission?
    Answer: 3.8-fold increase, assuming multiplicative effects of independent risk factors In logistic regression, when risk factors are independent, their effects multiply: 1.8 × 2.1 = 3.78 ≈ 3.8-fold increase. Choice A incorrectly takes the arithmetic mean. Choice C incorrectly adds the odds ratios (1.8 + 2.1 = 3.9). Choice D incorrectly uses harmonic mean calculation, which is not appropriate for combining multiplicative effects in logistic regression.

Start this quiz