Introduction

Statistical modeling is a fundamental tool in epidemiology that allows us to:

Describe relationships between variables
Predict outcomes based on risk factors
Estimate associations while controlling for confounding

This lecture introduces key concepts in regression modeling using real-world data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2023.

Setup and Data Preparation

# Load required packages
library(tidyverse)
library(haven)
library(knitr)
library(kableExtra)
library(plotly)
library(broom)
library(car)
library(ggeffects)
library(gtsummary)
library(ggstats)

# Load brfss_subset_2023.rds
eval=TRUE
brfss_clean <- read_rds('~/Desktop/EPI553/data/brfss_subset_2023.rds')

Load brfss_subset_2023.rds

eval=TRUE brfss_clean <- read_rds(‘~/Desktop/EPI553/data/brfss_subset_2023.rds’) ## Descriptive Statistics

# Summary table by diabetes status
desc_table <- brfss_clean %>%
  group_by(diabetes) %>%
  summarise(
    N = n(),
    `Mean Age` = round(mean(age_cont), 1),
    `% Male` = round(100 * mean(sex == "Male"), 1),
    `% Obese` = round(100 * mean(bmi_cat == "Obese", na.rm = TRUE), 1),
    `% Physically Active` = round(100 * mean(phys_active), 1),
    `% Current Smoker` = round(100 * mean(current_smoker), 1),
    `% Hypertension` = round(100 * mean(hypertension), 1),
    `% High Cholesterol` = round(100 * mean(high_chol), 1)
  ) %>%
  mutate(diabetes = ifelse(diabetes == 1, "Diabetes", "No Diabetes"))

desc_table %>%
  kable(caption = "Descriptive Statistics by Diabetes Status",
        align = "lrrrrrrrr") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover", "condensed"),
                full_width = FALSE)

Descriptive Statistics by Diabetes Status
diabetes	N	Mean Age	% Male	% Obese	% Physically Active	% Current Smoker	% Hypertension	% High Cholesterol
No Diabetes	1053	58.2	49.0	34.8	69.4	29.3	47.5	42.5
Diabetes	228	63.1	53.9	56.1	53.5	27.6	76.8	67.1

Part 1: Statistical Modeling Concepts

1. What is Statistical Modeling?

A statistical model is a mathematical representation of the relationship between:

An outcome variable (dependent variable, response)
One or more predictor variables (independent variables, exposures, covariates)

General Form of a Statistical Model

\[f(Y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \beta_2 X_2 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p + \epsilon\]

Where:

\(f(Y)\) is a function of the outcome (identity, log, logit, etc.)
\(\beta_0\) is the intercept (baseline value)
\(\beta_1, \beta_2, \ldots, \beta_p\) are coefficients (effect sizes)
\(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_p\) are predictor variables
\(\epsilon\) is the error term (random variation)

2. Types of Regression Models

The choice of regression model depends on the type of outcome variable:

Common Regression Models in Epidemiology
Outcome Type	Regression Type	Link Function	Example
Continuous	Linear	Identity: Y	Blood pressure, BMI
Binary	Logistic	Logit: log(p/(1-p))	Disease status, mortality
Count	Poisson/Negative Binomial	Log: log(Y)	Number of infections
Time-to-event	Cox Proportional Hazards	Log: log(h(t))	Survival time

Simple vs. Multiple Regression

Simple regression: One predictor variable
Multiple regression: Two or more predictor variables (controls for confounding)

3. Linear Regression Example

Let’s model the relationship between age and diabetes prevalence.

Simple Linear Regression

# Simple linear regression: diabetes ~ age
model_linear_simple <- lm(diabetes ~ age_cont, data = brfss_clean)

# Display results
tidy(model_linear_simple, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  kable(caption = "Simple Linear Regression: Diabetes ~ Age",
        digits = 4,
        col.names = c("Term", "Estimate", "Std. Error", "t-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE)

Simple Linear Regression: Diabetes ~ Age
Term	Estimate	Std. Error	t-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
(Intercept)	-0.0632	0.0481	-1.3125	0.1896	-0.1576	0.0312
age_cont	0.0041	0.0008	5.1368	0.0000	0.0025	0.0056

Interpretation:

Intercept (\(\beta_0\)): -0.0632 - Expected probability of diabetes at age 0 (not meaningful in this context)
Slope (\(\beta_1\)): 0.0041 - For each 1-year increase in age, the probability of diabetes increases by 0.41%

Visualization

With continuous age

# Create scatter plot with regression line
p1 <- ggplot(brfss_clean, aes(x = age_cont, y = diabetes)) +
  geom_jitter(alpha = 0.2, width = 0.5, height = 0.02, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = TRUE, color = "red", linewidth = 1.2) +
  labs(
    title = "Relationship Between Age and Diabetes",
    subtitle = "Simple Linear Regression",
    x = "Age (years)",
    y = "Probability of Diabetes"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p1) %>%
  layout(hovermode = "closest")

Diabetes Prevalence by Age

4. Logistic Regression: The Preferred Model for Binary Outcomes

Problem with linear regression for binary outcomes:

Predicted probabilities can fall outside [0, 1]
Assumes constant variance (violated for binary data)

Solution: Logistic Regression

Uses the logit link function to ensure predicted probabilities stay between 0 and 1:

\[\text{logit}(p) = \log\left(\frac{p}{1-p}\right) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p\]

Simple Logistic Regression

# Simple logistic regression: diabetes ~ age
model_logistic_simple <- glm(diabetes ~ age_cont,
                              data = brfss_clean,
                              family = binomial(link = "logit"))

# Display results with odds ratios
tidy(model_logistic_simple, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  kable(caption = "Simple Logistic Regression: Diabetes ~ Age (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE)

Simple Logistic Regression: Diabetes ~ Age (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
(Intercept)	0.029	0.423	-8.390	0	0.012	0.064
age_cont	1.034	0.007	4.978	0	1.021	1.048

Interpretation:

Odds Ratio (OR): 1.034
For each 1-year increase in age, the odds of diabetes increase by 3.4%
The relationship is highly statistically significant (p < 0.001)

Predicted Probabilities

# From ggeffects package
pp <- predict_response(model_logistic_simple, terms = "age_cont")
plot(pp)

Predicted Diabetes Probability by Age

# Generate predicted probabilities
pred_data <- data.frame(age_cont = seq(18, 80, by = 1))
pred_data$predicted_prob <- predict(model_logistic_simple,
                                    newdata = pred_data,
                                    type = "response")

# Plot
p2 <- ggplot(pred_data, aes(x = age_cont, y = predicted_prob)) +
  geom_line(color = "darkred", linewidth = 1.5) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = predicted_prob - 0.02,
                  ymax = predicted_prob + 0.02),
              alpha = 0.2, fill = "darkred") +
  labs(
    title = "Predicted Probability of Diabetes by Age",
    subtitle = "Simple Logistic Regression",
    x = "Age (years)",
    y = "Predicted Probability of Diabetes"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format(), limits = c(0, 0.6)) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p2)

Predicted Diabetes Probability by Age

5. Multiple Regression: Controlling for Confounding

What is Confounding?

A confounder is a variable that:

Is associated with both the exposure and the outcome
Is not on the causal pathway between exposure and outcome
Distorts the true relationship between exposure and outcome

Example: The relationship between age and diabetes may be confounded by BMI, physical activity, and other factors.

Multiple Logistic Regression

# Multiple logistic regression with potential confounders
model_logistic_multiple <- glm(diabetes ~ age_cont + sex + bmi_cat +
                                phys_active + current_smoker + education,
                               data = brfss_clean,
                               family = binomial(link = "logit"))

# Display results
tidy(model_logistic_multiple, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  kable(caption = "Multiple Logistic Regression: Diabetes ~ Age + Covariates (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  scroll_box(height = "400px")

Multiple Logistic Regression: Diabetes ~ Age + Covariates (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
(Intercept)	0.009	1.177	-4.001	0.000	0.000	0.065
age_cont	1.041	0.007	5.515	0.000	1.027	1.057
sexMale	1.191	0.154	1.133	0.257	0.880	1.613
bmi_catNormal	1.971	1.052	0.645	0.519	0.378	36.309
bmi_catOverweight	3.155	1.044	1.101	0.271	0.621	57.679
bmi_catObese	6.834	1.041	1.845	0.065	1.354	124.675
phys_active	0.589	0.157	-3.373	0.001	0.433	0.802
current_smoker	1.213	0.178	1.085	0.278	0.852	1.716
educationHigh school graduate	0.634	0.288	-1.579	0.114	0.364	1.131
educationSome college	0.542	0.294	-2.081	0.037	0.307	0.977
educationCollege graduate	0.584	0.305	-1.763	0.078	0.324	1.074

Interpretation:

Age (adjusted OR): 1.041
- After adjusting for sex, BMI, physical activity, smoking, and education, each 1-year increase in age is associated with a 4.1% increase in the odds of diabetes
Sex (Male vs Female): OR = 1.191
- Males have 19.1% higher odds of diabetes compared to females, adjusting for other variables

BMI (Obese vs Normal): OR = 6.834
- Obese individuals had 6.83 times higher odds of diabetes compared to normal-weight individuals.

6. Dummy Variables: Coding Categorical Predictors

Categorical variables with \(k\) levels are represented using \(k-1\) dummy variables (indicator variables).

Example: Education Level

Education has 4 levels: 1. < High school (reference category) 2. High school graduate 3. Some college 4. College graduate

R automatically creates 3 dummy variables:

# Extract dummy variable coding
dummy_table <- data.frame(
  Education = c("< High school", "High school graduate", "Some college", "College graduate"),
  `Dummy 1 (HS grad)` = c(0, 1, 0, 0),
  `Dummy 2 (Some college)` = c(0, 0, 1, 0),
  `Dummy 3 (College grad)` = c(0, 0, 0, 1),
  check.names = FALSE
)

dummy_table %>%
  kable(caption = "Dummy Variable Coding for Education",
        align = "lccc") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(1, bold = TRUE, background = "#ffe6e6")  # Highlight reference category

Dummy Variable Coding for Education
Education	Dummy 1 (HS grad)	Dummy 2 (Some college)	Dummy 3 (College grad)
< High school	0	0	0
High school graduate	1	0	0
Some college	0	1	0
College graduate	0	0	1

Reference Category: The category with all zeros (< High school) is the reference group. All other categories are compared to this reference.

Visualizing Education Effects

# Extract education coefficients
educ_coefs <- tidy(model_logistic_multiple, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  filter(str_detect(term, "education")) %>%
  mutate(
    education_level = str_remove(term, "education"),
    education_level = factor(education_level,
                             levels = c("High school graduate",
                                       "Some college",
                                       "College graduate"))
  )

# Add reference category
ref_row <- data.frame(
  term = "education< High school",
  estimate = 1.0,
  std.error = 0,
  statistic = NA,
  p.value = NA,
  conf.low = 1.0,
  conf.high = 1.0,
  education_level = factor("< High school (Ref)",
                          levels = c("< High school (Ref)",
                                    "High school graduate",
                                    "Some college",
                                    "College graduate"))
)

educ_coefs_full <- bind_rows(ref_row, educ_coefs) %>%
  mutate(education_level = factor(education_level,
                                 levels = c("< High school (Ref)",
                                           "High school graduate",
                                           "Some college",
                                           "College graduate")))

# Plot
p3 <- ggplot(educ_coefs_full, aes(x = education_level, y = estimate)) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "gray50") +
  geom_pointrange(aes(ymin = conf.low, ymax = conf.high),
                  size = 0.8, color = "darkblue") +
  coord_flip() +
  labs(
    title = "Association Between Education and Diabetes",
    subtitle = "Adjusted Odds Ratios (reference: < High school)",
    x = "Education Level",
    y = "Odds Ratio (95% CI)"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p3)

Odds Ratios for Education Levels

# Plot model coefficients with `ggcoef_model()`
ggcoef_model(model_logistic_multiple, exponentiate = TRUE,
  include = c("education"),
  variable_labels = c(
    education = "Education"),
  facet_labeller = ggplot2::label_wrap_gen(10)
)

7. Interactions (Effect Modification)

An interaction exists when the effect of one variable on the outcome differs across levels of another variable.

Epidemiologic term: Effect modification

Example: Age × Sex Interaction

Does the effect of age on diabetes differ between males and females?

# Model with interaction term
model_interaction <- glm(diabetes ~ age_cont * sex + bmi_cat + phys_active,
                         data = brfss_clean,
                         family = binomial(link = "logit"))

# Display interaction results
tidy(model_interaction, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  filter(str_detect(term, "age_cont")) %>%
  kable(caption = "Age × Sex Interaction Model (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE)

Age × Sex Interaction Model (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
age_cont	1.031	0.009	3.178	0.001	1.012	1.051
age_cont:sexMale	1.015	0.014	1.084	0.278	0.988	1.044

Interpretation:

Main effect of age: OR among females (reference)
Interaction term (age:sexMale): Additional effect of age among males
If the interaction term is significant, the age-diabetes relationship differs by sex

Visualizing Interaction

# Generate predicted probabilities by sex
pred_interact <- ggpredict(model_interaction, terms = c("age_cont [18:80]", "sex"))

# Plot
p4 <- ggplot(pred_interact, aes(x = x, y = predicted, color = group, fill = group)) +
  geom_line(linewidth = 1.2) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = conf.low, ymax = conf.high), alpha = 0.2, color = NA) +
  labs(
    title = "Predicted Probability of Diabetes by Age and Sex",
    subtitle = "Testing for Age × Sex Interaction",
    x = "Age (years)",
    y = "Predicted Probability of Diabetes",
    color = "Sex",
    fill = "Sex"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format()) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c("Female" = "#E64B35", "Male" = "#4DBBD5")) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c("Female" = "#E64B35", "Male" = "#4DBBD5")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12) +
  theme(legend.position = "bottom")

ggplotly(p4)

Age-Diabetes Relationship by Sex

8. Model Diagnostics

Every regression model makes assumptions about the data. If assumptions are violated, results may be invalid.

Key Assumptions for Logistic Regression

Linearity of log odds: Continuous predictors have a linear relationship with the log odds of the outcome
Independence of observations: Each observation is independent
No perfect multicollinearity: Predictors are not perfectly correlated
No influential outliers: Individual observations don’t overly influence the model

Checking for Multicollinearity

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF): Measures how much the variance of a coefficient is inflated due to correlation with other predictors.

VIF < 5: Generally acceptable
VIF > 10: Serious multicollinearity problem

# Calculate VIF
vif_values <- vif(model_logistic_multiple)

# Create VIF table
# For models with categorical variables, vif() returns GVIF (Generalized VIF)
if (is.matrix(vif_values)) {
  # If matrix (categorical variables present), extract GVIF^(1/(2*Df))
  vif_df <- data.frame(
    Variable = rownames(vif_values),
    VIF = vif_values[, "GVIF^(1/(2*Df))"]
  )
} else {
  # If vector (only continuous variables)
  vif_df <- data.frame(
    Variable = names(vif_values),
    VIF = as.numeric(vif_values)
  )
}

# Add interpretation
vif_df <- vif_df %>%
  arrange(desc(VIF)) %>%
  mutate(
    Interpretation = case_when(
      VIF < 5 ~ "Low (No concern)",
      VIF >= 5 & VIF < 10 ~ "Moderate (Monitor)",
      VIF >= 10 ~ "High (Problem)"
    )
  )

vif_df %>%
  kable(caption = "Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for Multiple Regression Model",
        digits = 2,
        align = "lrc") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF >= 10), bold = TRUE, color = "white", background = "#DC143C") %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF >= 5 & vif_df$VIF < 10), background = "#FFA500") %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF < 5), background = "#90EE90")

Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for Multiple Regression Model
	Variable	VIF	Interpretation
age_cont	age_cont	1.05	Low (No concern)
current_smoker	current_smoker	1.05	Low (No concern)
phys_active	phys_active	1.02	Low (No concern)
sex	sex	1.01	Low (No concern)
education	education	1.01	Low (No concern)
bmi_cat	bmi_cat	1.01	Low (No concern)

Influential Observations

Cook’s Distance: Measures how much the model would change if an observation were removed.

Cook’s D > 1: Potentially influential observation

# Calculate Cook's distance
cooks_d <- cooks.distance(model_logistic_multiple)

# Create data frame
influence_df <- data.frame(
  observation = 1:length(cooks_d),
  cooks_d = cooks_d
) %>%
  mutate(influential = ifelse(cooks_d > 1, "Yes", "No"))

# Plot
p5 <- ggplot(influence_df, aes(x = observation, y = cooks_d, color = influential)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.6) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  labs(
    title = "Cook's Distance: Identifying Influential Observations",
    subtitle = "Values > 1 indicate potentially influential observations",
    x = "Observation Number",
    y = "Cook's Distance",
    color = "Influential?"
  ) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c("No" = "steelblue", "Yes" = "red")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p5)

Cook’s Distance for Influential Observations

# Count influential observations
n_influential <- sum(influence_df$influential == "Yes")
cat("Number of potentially influential observations:", n_influential, "\n")

## Number of potentially influential observations: 0

9. Model Comparison and Selection

Comparing Nested Models

Use Likelihood Ratio Test to compare nested models:

# Model 1: Age only
model1 <- glm(diabetes ~ age_cont,
              data = brfss_clean,
              family = binomial)

# Model 2: Age + Sex
model2 <- glm(diabetes ~ age_cont + sex,
              data = brfss_clean,
              family = binomial)

# Model 3: Full model
model3 <- model_logistic_multiple

# Likelihood ratio test
lrt_1_2 <- anova(model1, model2, test = "LRT")
lrt_2_3 <- anova(model2, model3, test = "LRT")

# Create comparison table
model_comp <- data.frame(
  Model = c("Model 1: Age only",
            "Model 2: Age + Sex",
            "Model 3: Full model"),
  AIC = c(AIC(model1), AIC(model2), AIC(model3)),
  BIC = c(BIC(model1), BIC(model2), BIC(model3)),
  `Deviance` = c(deviance(model1), deviance(model2), deviance(model3)),
  check.names = FALSE
)

model_comp %>%
  kable(caption = "Model Comparison: AIC, BIC, and Deviance",
        digits = 2,
        align = "lrrr") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(which.min(model_comp$AIC), bold = TRUE, background = "#d4edda")

Model Comparison: AIC, BIC, and Deviance
Model	AIC	BIC	Deviance
Model 1: Age only	1175.08	1185.39	1171.08
Model 2: Age + Sex	1175.85	1191.32	1169.85
Model 3: Full model	1122.65	1179.36	1100.65

Interpretation:

Lower AIC/BIC indicates better model fit
Model 3 (full model) has the lowest AIC, suggesting it provides the best fit to the data

10. Error Term in Statistical Models

All statistical models include an error term (\(\epsilon\)) to account for:

Random variation in the outcome
Unmeasured variables not included in the model
Measurement error in variables

\[Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p + \epsilon\]

Key points:

The model cannot perfectly predict every outcome
The difference between observed and predicted values is the error (residual)
We assume errors are normally distributed with mean 0 (for linear regression)

Part 2: Student Lab Activity

Lab Overview

In this lab, you will:

Build your own logistic regression model predicting hypertension (high blood pressure)
Create dummy variables for categorical predictors
Interpret regression coefficients
Test for confounding and interaction
Perform model diagnostics

Lab Instructions

load in BRFSS subset

# Load the full BRFSS 2023 dataset
brfss_clean <- read_rds('~/Desktop/EPI553/data/brfss_subset_2023.rds') %>%
  janitor::clean_names()

# Display dataset dimensions
names(brfss_clean)

##  [1] "diabetes"       "age_group"      "age_cont"       "sex"           
##  [5] "race"           "education"      "income"         "bmi_cat"       
##  [9] "phys_active"    "current_smoker" "gen_health"     "hypertension"  
## [13] "high_chol"

# view the beginning rows 
head(brfss_clean)

## # A tibble: 6 × 13
##   diabetes age_group age_cont sex    race  education  income bmi_cat phys_active
##      <dbl> <fct>        <dbl> <fct>  <fct> <fct>      <fct>  <fct>         <dbl>
## 1        0 65+           70   Female White Some coll… $75,0… Obese             1
## 2        0 35-44         39.5 Male   Black Some coll… Unkno… Obese             1
## 3        0 65+           70   Male   White College g… Unkno… Normal            1
## 4        0 65+           70   Female White High scho… $50,0… Normal            1
## 5        0 65+           70   Female White High scho… $50,0… Overwe…           1
## 6        0 65+           70   Male   White College g… $75,0… Normal            1
## # ℹ 4 more variables: current_smoker <dbl>, gen_health <fct>,
## #   hypertension <dbl>, high_chol <dbl>

note hypertension status is binary

Task 1: Explore the Outcome Variable

# Create a frequency table of hypertension status
brfss_clean %>%
  count(hypertension) %>%
  mutate(
    percent = n/ sum(n)* 100
  )

## # A tibble: 2 × 3
##   hypertension     n percent
##          <dbl> <int>   <dbl>
## 1            0   606    47.3
## 2            1   675    52.7

# Calculate the prevalence of hypertension by age group
brfss_clean %>%
  group_by(age_group) %>%
  summarise(
    n=n(),
    prevalence= mean(hypertension==1, na.rm=TRUE)
  )

## # A tibble: 6 × 3
##   age_group     n prevalence
##   <fct>     <int>      <dbl>
## 1 18-24        12     0.0833
## 2 25-34        77     0.195 
## 3 35-44       138     0.304 
## 4 45-54       161     0.379 
## 5 55-64       266     0.515 
## 6 65+         627     0.668

# Overall prevalence 
brfss_clean %>%
  summarise(
    n=n(),
    prevalence= mean(hypertension==1, na.rm=TRUE)
  ) %>%
  kable(caption= "Overall Prevalence of Hypertension")

Overall Prevalence of Hypertension
n	prevalence
1281	0.5269321

Questions:

What is the overall prevalence of hypertension in the dataset? The overall prevalence of hypertension in this dataset is 0.5269 or 52.69%
How does hypertension prevalence vary by age group? Hypertension prevalence does vary by age group. As age groups increase so does hypertension prevalence. Note: the sample size increases too as age increases —

Task 2: Build a Simple Logistic Regression Model

# Fit a simple logistic regression model
# Outcome: hypertension
# Predictor: age_cont
model_slr <- glm(hypertension ~ age_cont, 
                 data=brfss_clean,
                 family= binomial(link= "logit"))

# Display the results with odds ratios
tidy(model_slr, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  kable(caption = "Simple Logistic Regression: Hypertension ~ Age (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE)

Simple Logistic Regression: Hypertension ~ Age (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
(Intercept)	0.048	0.296	-10.293	0	0.026	0.084
age_cont	1.055	0.005	10.996	0	1.045	1.065

Questions:

What is the odds ratio for age? Interpret this value. The odds ratio for age is 1.055, which means for each 1-year increase in age, the odds of hypertension increase by 5.5%
Is the association statistically significant? Yes, this association is statistically significant (p< 0.001)
What is the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio? The 95% CI for the odds ratio is 1.045-1.065 —

Task 3: Create a Multiple Regression Model

# Fit a multiple logistic regression model
# Outcome: hypertension
# Predictors: age_cont, sex, bmi_cat, phys_active, current_smoker
model_logistic_multiple <- glm(hypertension~ age_cont + sex + bmi_cat +
                                phys_active + current_smoker,
                               data = brfss_clean,
                               family = binomial(link = "logit"))

# Display results
tidy(model_logistic_multiple, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  kable(caption = "Multiple Logistic Regression: Hypertension ~ Age + Predictors (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  scroll_box(height = "400px")

Multiple Logistic Regression: Hypertension ~ Age + Predictors (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
(Intercept)	0.008	0.653	-7.355	0.000	0.002	0.028
age_cont	1.061	0.005	11.234	0.000	1.050	1.073
sexMale	1.270	0.123	1.950	0.051	0.999	1.616
bmi_catNormal	2.097	0.546	1.356	0.175	0.759	6.756
bmi_catOverweight	3.241	0.543	2.166	0.030	1.183	10.385
bmi_catObese	6.585	0.545	3.459	0.001	2.394	21.176
phys_active	0.900	0.130	-0.808	0.419	0.697	1.162
current_smoker	1.071	0.139	0.495	0.621	0.817	1.407

Questions:

How did the odds ratio for age change after adjusting for other variables? After adjusting for other variables the odds ratio for age increased from 1.055 to 1.061.
What does this suggest about confounding? This suggests that the other factors (sex, bmi, physical activity, and smoking) were masking the effects that age has on hypertension.
Which variables are the strongest predictors of hypertension? The obese BMI variable is the strongest predictor of hypertension. Following that is the overweight and normal BMI variables. —

Task 4: Interpret Dummy Variables

#check bmi variable names tidy(model_logistic_multiple)

# Create a table showing the dummy variable coding for bmi_cat
dummy_table <- data.frame(
  BMI = c("normal", "overweight", "obese"),
  `Dummy 1 (normal)` = c(1, 0, 0),
  `Dummy 2 (overweight)` = c(0, 1, 0),
  `Dummy 3 (obese)` = c(0, 0, 1),
  check.names = FALSE
)

dummy_table %>%
  kable(caption = "Dummy Variable Coding for BMI",
        align = "lccc") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(1, bold = TRUE, background = "#ffe6e6")  # Highlight reference category

Dummy Variable Coding for BMI
BMI	Dummy 1 (normal)	Dummy 2 (overweight)	Dummy 3 (obese)
normal	1	0	0
overweight	0	1	0
obese	0	0	1

# Extract 
bmi_coefs <- tidy(model_logistic_multiple, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  filter(str_detect(term, "bmi")) %>%
  mutate(
    bmi_cat = str_remove(term, "bmi"),
    bmi_cat = factor(bmi_cat,
                             levels = c("bmi_catNormal",
                                       "bmi_catOverweight",
                                       "bmi_catObese"))
  )

# Add reference category
ref_row <- data.frame(
  term = "Normal BMI",
  estimate = 1.0,
  std.error = 0,
  statistic = NA,
  p.value = NA,
  conf.low = 1.0,
  conf.high = 1.0,
  bmi_cat = factor("Normal (Ref)",
                          levels = c("bmi_catNormal (Ref)",
                                    "bmi_catOverweight",
                                    "bmi_catObese"))
)

bmi_coefs_full <- bind_rows(ref_row, bmi_coefs) %>%
  mutate(bmi_cat = factor(bmi_cat,
                                 levels = c("bmi_catNormal (Ref)",
                                           "bmi_catOverweight",
                                           "bmi_catObese")))

# Display
p3 <- ggplot(bmi_coefs_full, aes(x = bmi_cat, y = estimate)) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "gray50") +
  geom_pointrange(aes(ymin = conf.low, ymax = conf.high),
                  size = 0.8, color = "darkblue") +
  coord_flip() +
  labs(
    title = "Association Between BMI and Hypertension",
    subtitle = "Adjusted Odds Ratios (reference: Normal BMI)",
    x = "BMI Category",
    y = "Odds Ratio (95% CI)"
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p3)

Questions:

What is the reference category for BMI? Normal is the reference category for BMI
Interpret the odds ratio for “Obese” compared to the reference category. Individuals in the obese bmi category would have 6.58 times higher odds of hypertension in comparison to those with normal bmi
How would you explain this to a non-statistician? I would say that individuals who are obese are about six times more likely to have hypertension (high bp) compared to those with normal bmi —

Task 5: Test for Interaction

# Fit a model with Age × BMI interaction
# Test if the effect of age on hypertension differs by BMI category
model_interaction <- glm(hypertension ~ age_cont * bmi_cat,
                         data = brfss_clean,
                         family = binomial(link = "logit"))

# Display interaction results
tidy(model_interaction, exponentiate = TRUE, conf.int = TRUE) %>%
  filter(str_detect(term, "age_cont")) %>%
  kable(caption = "BMI × Age Interaction Model (Odds Ratios)",
        digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Term", "Odds Ratio", "Std. Error", "z-statistic", "p-value", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper")) %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE)

BMI × Age Interaction Model (Odds Ratios)
Term	Odds Ratio	Std. Error	z-statistic	p-value	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper
age_cont	1.004	0.042	0.102	0.918	0.929	1.108
age_cont:bmi_catNormal	1.058	0.043	1.306	0.192	0.957	1.147
age_cont:bmi_catOverweight	1.063	0.043	1.423	0.155	0.962	1.151
age_cont:bmi_catObese	1.054	0.042	1.232	0.218	0.954	1.140

library(ggeffects)
library(plotly)
# Generate predicted probabilities by sex
pred_interact <- ggpredict(model_interaction, terms = c("age_cont [18:80]","bmi_cat"))

# Visualize
p4 <- ggplot(pred_interact, aes(x = x, y = predicted, color = group, fill = group)) +
  geom_line(linewidth = 1.2) +
  geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = conf.low, ymax = conf.high), alpha = 0.2, color = NA) +
  labs(
    title = "Predicted Probability of Hypertension by Age and BMI",
    subtitle = "Testing for Age × BMI Interaction",
    x = "Age (years)",
    y = "Predicted Probability of Hypertension",
    color = "BMI",
    fill = "BMI"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format()) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c("Normal" = "#E64B35", "Overweight" = "#4DBBD5", "Obese"= "#ABB087")) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c("Normal" = "#E64B35", "Overweight" = "#4DBBD5", "Obese"= "#ABB087")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12) +
  theme(legend.position = "bottom")

ggplotly(p4)

# Perform a likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without interaction
# Likelihood ratio test
lrt_1_2 <- anova(model1, model2, test = "LRT")
lrt_2_3 <- anova(model2, model3, test = "LRT")

Questions:

Is the interaction term statistically significant? No the interaction term is not statistically significant
What does this mean in epidemiologic terms (effect modification)? This means that BMI does not change the effect age has on hypertension, in other words, BMI is not an effect modifier of the relationship between age and hypertension
Create a visualization showing predicted probabilities by age and BMI category

Task 6: Model Diagnostics

# Calculate VIF for your multiple regression model
vif_values <- vif(model_logistic_multiple)

# Create VIF table
# For models with categorical variables, vif() returns GVIF (Generalized VIF)
if (is.matrix(vif_values)) {
  # If matrix (categorical variables present), extract GVIF^(1/(2*Df))
  vif_df <- data.frame(
    Variable = rownames(vif_values),
    VIF = vif_values[, "GVIF^(1/(2*Df))"]
  )
} else {
  # If vector (only continuous variables)
  vif_df <- data.frame(
    Variable = names(vif_values),
    VIF = as.numeric(vif_values)
  )
}

# Add interpretation
vif_df <- vif_df %>%
  arrange(desc(VIF)) %>%
  mutate(
    Interpretation = case_when(
      VIF < 5 ~ "Low (No concern)",
      VIF >= 5 & VIF < 10 ~ "Moderate (Monitor)",
      VIF >= 10 ~ "High (Problem)"
    )
  )

vif_df %>%
  kable(caption = "Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for Multiple Regression Model",
        digits = 2,
        align = "lrc") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF >= 10), bold = TRUE, color = "white", background = "#DC143C") %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF >= 5 & vif_df$VIF < 10), background = "#FFA500") %>%
  row_spec(which(vif_df$VIF < 5), background = "#90EE90")

Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) for Multiple Regression Model
	Variable	VIF	Interpretation
age_cont	age_cont	1.06	Low (No concern)
current_smoker	current_smoker	1.04	Low (No concern)
bmi_cat	bmi_cat	1.02	Low (No concern)
phys_active	phys_active	1.01	Low (No concern)
sex	sex	1.01	Low (No concern)

# YOUR CODE HERE: Create a Cook's distance plot to identify influential observations
cooks_d <- cooks.distance(model_logistic_multiple)

# Create data frame
influence_df <- data.frame(
  observation = 1:length(cooks_d),
  cooks_d = cooks_d
) %>%
  mutate(influential = ifelse(cooks_d > 1, "Yes", "No"))

# Plot
p5 <- ggplot(influence_df, aes(x = observation, y = cooks_d, color = influential)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.6) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  labs(
    title = "Cook's Distance: Identifying Influential Observations",
    subtitle = "Values > 1 indicate potentially influential observations",
    x = "Observation Number",
    y = "Cook's Distance",
    color = "Influential?"
  ) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c("No" = "steelblue", "Yes" = "red")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12)

ggplotly(p5)

# Count influential observations
n_influential <- sum(influence_df$influential == "Yes")
cat("Number of potentially influential observations:", n_influential, "\n")

## Number of potentially influential observations: 0

Questions:

Are there any concerns about multicollinearity? No there aren’t any concerns about multicollinearity. VIF is less than 5 for all variables (none are above 10 indicating there are no serious multicollinearity problems)
Are there any influential observations that might affect your results? There are 0 influential observations that might affect my results
What would you do if you found serious violations? If there were serious violations I would look closer into the influential observations —

Task 7: Model Comparison

# YOUR CODE HERE: Compare three models using AIC and BIC
# Model A: Age only
model1 <- glm(hypertension ~ age_cont,
              data = brfss_clean,
              family = binomial)
# Model B: Age + sex + bmi_cat
model2 <- glm(hypertension ~ age_cont + bmi_cat,
              data = brfss_clean,
              family = binomial)
# Model C: Age + sex + bmi_cat + phys_active + current_smoker
modelC <- model_logistic_multiple

# Create comparison table
model_comp <- data.frame(
  Model = c("Model 1: Age only",
            "Model 2: Age + BMI",
            "Model 3: Full model"),
  AIC = c(AIC(model1), AIC(model2), AIC(model3)),
  BIC = c(BIC(model1), BIC(model2), BIC(model3)),
  `Deviance` = c(deviance(model1), deviance(model2), deviance(model3)),
  check.names = FALSE
)
model_comp %>%
  kable(caption = "Model Comparison: AIC, BIC, and Deviance",
        digits = 2,
        align = "lrrr") %>%
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = c("striped", "hover"),
                full_width = FALSE) %>%
  row_spec(which.min(model_comp$AIC), bold = TRUE, background = "#d4edda")

Model Comparison: AIC, BIC, and Deviance
Model	AIC	BIC	Deviance
Model 1: Age only	1636.61	1646.92	1632.61
Model 2: Age + BMI	1578.06	1603.84	1568.06
Model 3: Full model	1122.65	1179.36	1100.65

Questions:

Which model has the best fit based on AIC? Age+BMI has the best fit based on AIC (since it has the lowest AIC)
Is the added complexity of the full model justified? No since the full model is not the best fit
Which model would you choose for your final analysis? Why? I would chose the Age + BMI since it has the best fit/lowest AIC/BIC —

Lab Report Guidelines

Write a brief report (1-2 pages) summarizing your findings:

Introduction: State your research question
Methods: Describe your analytic approach
Results: Present key findings with tables and figures
Interpretation: Explain what your results mean
Limitations: Discuss potential issues with your analysis

My research was to explore the relationship between hypertension and age. Additionaly, relationships between confounders, such as BMI, sex, physical activity, and smoking were examined to see if they had any influence on my primary relationship (hypertension and age). I conducted a cross-sectional analysis. First, I calculated the prevalence of hypertension for each age group. Then, I built a simple logisitic model with age as the predictor and hypertension status as the the outcome to calculate the odds ratio for age. A multiple regression model was created to see how the odds ratio changed in the presence of confounders. After, I focused on BMI by creating a dummy variable table and testing for an interaction between age and BMI to see if the effect of age on hypertension varies by BMI status. Multicollinearity was investigated using VIF from my multiple regression model. Influential observations were identified from a Cook’s distance plot. Finally, nested models were compared. The prevalence of hypertension increased with age. The simple logistic model showed there was a statistically significant association between hypertension and age (OR=1.055, p<0.001).After adjusting for confounders, the odds ratio slightly increased indicating that other factors including BMI, sex, physical acitivty, and smoking status were masking the relationship between age and hypertension. In other words, the relationship between age and hypertension is stronger (OR= 1.061 without confounders). There was a relationship between BMI status and hypertension found when investigating their relationship, those with a normal bmi had lower odds of having hypertension. However, BMI was not an effect modifier of age and hypertension though. There were no concerns of multicolinearity found (VIF values all < 2) and there were no influential observations that might affect the results. These findings suggest a strong, postive association between age and hypertension so as age increases so does the likelihood of hypertension. Adjusting for confounders revealed that the effect of age is slightly stronger than originally observed. Individuals with a normal BMI were less likely to have hypertension, although BMI did not modify the effect of age. Since this was a cross-sectional study, causation cannot be assumed we can only see that there is a relationship between both variables (age doesn’t cause hypertension and hypertension doesn’t cause age). Also, not all possible confounders were evaluated.

Submission: Submit your completed R Markdown file and knitted HTML report.

Summary

Key Concepts Covered

Statistical modeling describes relationships between variables
Regression types depend on the outcome variable type
Logistic regression is appropriate for binary outcomes
Multiple regression controls for confounding
Dummy variables represent categorical predictors
Interactions test for effect modification
Model diagnostics check assumptions and identify problems
Model comparison helps select the best model

Important Formulas

Logistic Regression:

\[\text{logit}(p) = \log\left(\frac{p}{1-p}\right) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p\]

Odds Ratio:

\[\text{OR} = e^{\beta_i}\]

Predicted Probability:

\[p = \frac{e^{\beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p}}{1 + e^{\beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots + \beta_p X_p}}\]

References

Agresti, A. (2018). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Vittinghoff, E., Glidden, D. V., Shiboski, S. C., & McCulloch, C. E. (2012). Regression Methods in Biostatistics (2nd ed.). Springer.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Session Info

sessionInfo()

## R version 4.5.2 (2025-10-31)
## Platform: aarch64-apple-darwin20
## Running under: macOS Sequoia 15.6.1
## 
## Matrix products: default
## BLAS:   /System/Library/Frameworks/Accelerate.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/vecLib.framework/Versions/A/libBLAS.dylib 
## LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.5-arm64/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib;  LAPACK version 3.12.1
## 
## locale:
## [1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
## 
## time zone: America/New_York
## tzcode source: internal
## 
## attached base packages:
## [1] stats     graphics  grDevices utils     datasets  methods   base     
## 
## other attached packages:
##  [1] ggstats_0.12.0   gtsummary_2.5.0  ggeffects_2.3.2  car_3.1-3       
##  [5] carData_3.0-5    broom_1.0.11     plotly_4.12.0    kableExtra_1.4.0
##  [9] knitr_1.51       haven_2.5.5      lubridate_1.9.4  forcats_1.0.1   
## [13] stringr_1.6.0    dplyr_1.2.0      purrr_1.2.1      readr_2.1.5     
## [17] tidyr_1.3.2      tibble_3.3.0     ggplot2_4.0.1    tidyverse_2.0.0 
## 
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
##  [1] gtable_0.3.6         xfun_0.56            bslib_0.9.0         
##  [4] htmlwidgets_1.6.4    insight_1.4.5        lattice_0.22-7      
##  [7] tzdb_0.5.0           crosstalk_1.2.2      vctrs_0.7.1         
## [10] tools_4.5.2          generics_0.1.4       datawizard_1.3.0    
## [13] pkgconfig_2.0.3      Matrix_1.7-4         data.table_1.18.0   
## [16] RColorBrewer_1.1-3   S7_0.2.1             lifecycle_1.0.5     
## [19] compiler_4.5.2       farver_2.1.2         textshaping_1.0.4   
## [22] janitor_2.2.1        codetools_0.2-20     snakecase_0.11.1    
## [25] htmltools_0.5.9      sass_0.4.10          yaml_2.3.12         
## [28] lazyeval_0.2.2       Formula_1.2-5        pillar_1.11.0       
## [31] jquerylib_0.1.4      broom.helpers_1.22.0 cachem_1.1.0        
## [34] abind_1.4-8          nlme_3.1-168         tidyselect_1.2.1    
## [37] digest_0.6.39        stringi_1.8.7        labeling_0.4.3      
## [40] splines_4.5.2        labelled_2.16.0      fastmap_1.2.0       
## [43] grid_4.5.2           cli_3.6.5            magrittr_2.0.3      
## [46] cards_0.7.1          utf8_1.2.6           withr_3.0.2         
## [49] scales_1.4.0         backports_1.5.0      timechange_0.3.0    
## [52] rmarkdown_2.30       httr_1.4.7           otel_0.2.0          
## [55] hms_1.1.3            evaluate_1.0.5       viridisLite_0.4.2   
## [58] mgcv_1.9-3           rlang_1.1.7          glue_1.8.0          
## [61] xml2_1.5.2           svglite_2.2.2        rstudioapi_0.18.0   
## [64] jsonlite_2.0.0       R6_2.6.1             systemfonts_1.3.1

Statistical Modeling in Epidemiology

EPI 553 - Advanced Epidemiologic Methods

Muntasir Masum

2026-02-25

Introduction

Setup and Data Preparation

Load brfss_subset_2023.rds

Part 1: Statistical Modeling Concepts

1. What is Statistical Modeling?

General Form of a Statistical Model

2. Types of Regression Models

Simple vs. Multiple Regression

3. Linear Regression Example

Simple Linear Regression

Visualization

With continuous age

4. Logistic Regression: The Preferred Model for Binary Outcomes

Simple Logistic Regression

Predicted Probabilities

5. Multiple Regression: Controlling for Confounding

What is Confounding?

Multiple Logistic Regression

6. Dummy Variables: Coding Categorical Predictors

Example: Education Level

Visualizing Education Effects

7. Interactions (Effect Modification)

Example: Age × Sex Interaction

Visualizing Interaction

8. Model Diagnostics

Key Assumptions for Logistic Regression

Checking for Multicollinearity

Influential Observations

9. Model Comparison and Selection

Comparing Nested Models

10. Error Term in Statistical Models

Part 2: Student Lab Activity

Lab Overview

Lab Instructions

load in BRFSS subset

note hypertension status is binary

Task 1: Explore the Outcome Variable

Task 2: Build a Simple Logistic Regression Model

Task 3: Create a Multiple Regression Model

Task 4: Interpret Dummy Variables

Task 5: Test for Interaction

Task 6: Model Diagnostics

Task 7: Model Comparison

Lab Report Guidelines

Summary

Key Concepts Covered

Important Formulas

References