Introduction

In Part 1, we introduced the logistic model, the logit transformation, and the connection between logistic regression coefficients and odds ratios. We fit simple logistic regression models with single predictors and previewed multiple logistic regression.

In Part 2, we go deeper:

  1. Multiple logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios for confounder control
  2. Maximum likelihood estimation and the Wald and likelihood ratio tests
  3. Confidence intervals for adjusted odds ratios
  4. Interaction terms in logistic regression and effect modification
  5. Goodness-of-fit: deviance, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, pseudo-R²
  6. Model discrimination: ROC curves and the area under the curve (AUC)
  7. Diagnostics: residuals, influential observations, and linearity in the logit

Textbook reference: Kleinbaum et al., Chapter 22 (Sections 22.4 and 22.5)

Setup and Data

library(tidyverse)
library(knitr)
library(kableExtra)
library(broom)
library(gtsummary)
library(car)
library(ggeffects)
library(ResourceSelection)  # for Hosmer-Lemeshow
library(pROC)               # for ROC/AUC
library(performance)        # for model performance metrics
library(sjPlot)
library(modelsummary)

options(gtsummary.use_ftExtra = TRUE)
set_gtsummary_theme(theme_gtsummary_compact(set_theme = TRUE))
brfss_logistic <- readRDS(
  "/Users/zoya_hayes/Desktop/EPI553/EPI553_Coding/data/brfss_logistic_2020.rds"
)

dim(brfss_logistic)
## [1] 5000   10

Outcome: fmd — Frequent Mental Distress (1 = 14+ mentally unhealthy days in past 30, 0 = otherwise).

Part 1: Multiple Logistic Regression

The Adjusted Model

We extend the simple model to include several predictors:

\[\text{logit}[\Pr(Y = 1)] = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \beta_2 X_2 + \cdots + \beta_k X_k\]

Each coefficient \(\beta_j\) represents the change in log-odds for a one-unit increase in \(X_j\), holding all other predictors constant. Exponentiating gives the adjusted odds ratio:

\[\text{aOR}_j = e^{\beta_j}\]

mod_full <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + smoker + age + sex + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial(link = "logit")
)

mod_full |>
  tbl_regression(
    exponentiate = TRUE,
    label = list(
      exercise      ~ "Exercise (past 30 days)",
      smoker        ~ "Smoking status",
      age           ~ "Age (per year)",
      sex           ~ "Sex",
      sleep_hrs     ~ "Sleep hours",
      income_cat    ~ "Income category (per unit)",
      bmi           ~ "BMI",
      physhlth_days ~ "Physically unhealthy days"
    )
  ) |>
  bold_labels() |>
  bold_p()
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
Exercise (past 30 days)


    No — —
    Yes 0.82 0.68, 0.99 0.041
Smoking status


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.30 1.09, 1.56 0.004
Age (per year) 0.97 0.96, 0.97 <0.001
Sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.68 1.41, 1.98 <0.001
Sleep hours 0.86 0.81, 0.90 <0.001
Income category (per unit) 0.91 0.87, 0.95 <0.001
BMI 1.01 0.99, 1.02 0.4
Physically unhealthy days 1.06 1.06, 1.07 <0.001
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio

Interpretation: Each row gives the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% CI for one predictor, controlling for all others. For example, the aOR for current smoking compares the odds of frequent mental distress for current smokers vs. former/never smokers, after adjusting for age, sex, sleep, income, BMI, exercise, and physical health. An aOR > 1 indicates a risk factor; an aOR < 1 indicates a protective factor.

Scaling Continuous Predictors

A 1-year change in age or a 1-unit change in BMI is rarely the most clinically meaningful comparison. We can rescale to improve interpretation:

mod_scaled <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + smoker + I(age/10) + sex + sleep_hrs +
        income_cat + I(bmi/5) + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

mod_scaled |>
  tbl_regression(
    exponentiate = TRUE,
    label = list(
      "I(age/10)"  ~ "Age (per 10 years)",
      "I(bmi/5)"   ~ "BMI (per 5 units)"
    )
  ) |>
  bold_labels()
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
exercise


    No — —
    Yes 0.82 0.68, 0.99 0.041
smoker


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.30 1.09, 1.56 0.004
Age (per 10 years) 0.73 0.69, 0.77 <0.001
sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.68 1.41, 1.98 <0.001
sleep_hrs 0.86 0.81, 0.90 <0.001
income_cat 0.91 0.87, 0.95 <0.001
BMI (per 5 units) 1.03 0.97, 1.10 0.4
physhlth_days 1.06 1.06, 1.07 <0.001
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio

Interpretation: Now the aOR for age compares two individuals 10 years apart, and the aOR for BMI compares two individuals 5 BMI units apart, both more clinically interpretable.

Part 2: Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Hypothesis Tests

Maximum Likelihood Estimation (ML)

Unlike linear regression, which uses ordinary least squares, logistic regression coefficients are estimated by maximum likelihood. The algorithm finds the values of \(\beta_0, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_k\) that maximize the likelihood of observing the data.

The likelihood function for \(n\) independent binary observations is:

\[L(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i^{y_i}(1 - p_i)^{1 - y_i}\]

where \(p_i = \Pr(Y_i = 1 \mid X_i)\) is the predicted probability for observation \(i\). Taking the log gives the log-likelihood:

\[\ln L(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left[y_i \ln p_i + (1 - y_i) \ln(1 - p_i)\right]\]

The ML estimates \(\hat{\beta}\) are obtained iteratively (typically by Newton-Raphson). We never compute these by hand, but it is important to know that R’s glm() reports Deviance \(= -2 \ln \hat{L}\), which is the foundation for hypothesis testing.

Wald Test (z-test for individual coefficients)

The Wald test is the default test reported by summary() and tidy(). For each coefficient \(\beta_j\):

\[z = \frac{\hat{\beta}_j}{\text{SE}(\hat{\beta}_j)} \sim N(0, 1) \text{ under } H_0: \beta_j = 0\]

The p-value tests whether the coefficient is significantly different from zero, equivalently whether the OR is significantly different from 1.

tidy(mod_full, conf.int = TRUE, exponentiate = TRUE) |>
  mutate(across(c(estimate, std.error, statistic, conf.low, conf.high),
                \(x) round(x, 3)),
         p.value = format.pval(p.value, digits = 3)) |>
  kable(caption = "Wald Tests for Each Coefficient (Exponentiated)") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Wald Tests for Each Coefficient (Exponentiated)
term estimate std.error statistic p.value conf.low conf.high
(Intercept) 2.198 0.356 2.215 0.02675 1.095 4.414
exerciseYes 0.820 0.097 -2.044 0.04095 0.679 0.993
smokerCurrent 1.301 0.091 2.890 0.00386 1.088 1.555
age 0.969 0.003 -11.225 < 2e-16 0.963 0.974
sexFemale 1.675 0.086 5.975 2.30e-09 1.415 1.985
sleep_hrs 0.857 0.027 -5.643 1.67e-08 0.812 0.904
income_cat 0.909 0.020 -4.703 2.56e-06 0.873 0.946
bmi 1.006 0.006 0.932 0.35113 0.993 1.018
physhlth_days 1.065 0.004 15.634 < 2e-16 1.057 1.073

Caveat: The Wald test can be unreliable when sample sizes are small or when coefficients are large. The likelihood ratio test is generally preferred for these situations.

Likelihood Ratio Test (LR test)

The likelihood ratio test compares two nested models: a “full” model and a “reduced” model that drops one or more predictors. The test statistic is:

\[\text{LR} = -2(\ln \hat{L}_{\text{reduced}} - \ln \hat{L}_{\text{full}}) = D_{\text{reduced}} - D_{\text{full}}\]

Under \(H_0\) that the dropped predictors have no effect, LR follows a \(\chi^2\) distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the number of parameters dropped.

Example: Test the joint contribution of smoking and exercise

mod_reduced <- glm(
  fmd ~ age + sex + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

anova(mod_reduced, mod_full, test = "LRT") |>
  kable(digits = 3,
        caption = "LR Test: Does adding exercise + smoker improve the model?") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
LR Test: Does adding exercise + smoker improve the model?
Resid. Df Resid. Dev Df Deviance Pr(>Chi)
4993 3641.913 NA NA NA
4991 3628.474 2 13.439 0.001

Interpretation: The LR test gives a \(\chi^2\) statistic on 3 degrees of freedom (1 for exercise, 2 for smoker — but smoker has 2 levels so 1 dummy variable is created, making df = 2 here actually). A small p-value means the dropped variables jointly contribute to model fit.

Wald vs. LR test in practice

Aspect Wald test LR test
What it tests Single coefficient or vector Nested model comparison
Computational cost Very fast Requires fitting two models
Reliability with small samples Less reliable Generally preferred
Reported by R summary(model) anova(m1, m2, test = "LRT")

In large samples (like ours with n = 5,000), the two tests usually agree. In smaller samples or with extreme estimates, prefer the LR test.

Part 3: Confidence Intervals for Adjusted Odds Ratios

For the OR of a single coefficient, the 95% CI is computed on the log-odds scale and then exponentiated:

\[95\% \text{ CI for } e^{\beta_j} = \exp\left(\hat{\beta}_j \pm 1.96 \cdot \text{SE}(\hat{\beta}_j)\right)\]

This is the default approach used by confint() and tidy(..., conf.int = TRUE).

ci_table <- tidy(mod_full, conf.int = TRUE, exponentiate = TRUE) |>
  filter(term != "(Intercept)") |>
  dplyr::select(term, estimate, conf.low, conf.high) |>
  mutate(across(c(estimate, conf.low, conf.high), \(x) round(x, 3)))

ci_table |>
  kable(col.names = c("Predictor", "aOR", "95% CI Lower", "95% CI Upper"),
        caption = "Adjusted Odds Ratios with 95% CIs") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Adjusted Odds Ratios with 95% CIs
Predictor aOR 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper
exerciseYes 0.820 0.679 0.993
smokerCurrent 1.301 1.088 1.555
age 0.969 0.963 0.974
sexFemale 1.675 1.415 1.985
sleep_hrs 0.857 0.812 0.904
income_cat 0.909 0.873 0.946
bmi 1.006 0.993 1.018
physhlth_days 1.065 1.057 1.073

Forest Plot of Adjusted ORs

A forest plot is the standard way to visualize multiple ORs and their CIs:

ci_table |>
  ggplot(aes(x = estimate, y = reorder(term, estimate))) +
  geom_vline(xintercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  geom_point(size = 3, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = conf.low, xmax = conf.high), height = 0.2,
                 color = "steelblue") +
  scale_x_log10() +
  labs(title = "Forest Plot of Adjusted Odds Ratios for Frequent Mental Distress",
       subtitle = "Reference line at OR = 1; log-scale x-axis",
       x = "Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)", y = NULL) +
  theme_minimal()

Interpretation: Predictors whose CIs do not cross the dashed line at OR = 1 are statistically significantly associated with FMD at the 0.05 level. The log-scale x-axis ensures that ORs of 0.5 and 2.0 (which represent equally strong associations in opposite directions) appear equidistant from 1.

Part 4: Interaction (Effect Modification)

What Is Interaction in Logistic Regression?

Interaction (effect modification) occurs when the effect of one predictor on the outcome depends on the value of another predictor. In logistic regression, interaction is modeled by including a product term:

\[\text{logit}[\Pr(Y=1)] = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \beta_2 X_2 + \beta_3 (X_1 \cdot X_2)\]

If \(\beta_3 \neq 0\), the OR for \(X_1\) depends on the value of \(X_2\).

Example: Does the effect of exercise differ by sex?

mod_interact <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise * sex + age + smoker + sleep_hrs + income_cat,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

mod_interact |>
  tbl_regression(exponentiate = TRUE) |>
  bold_labels() |>
  bold_p()
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
exercise


    No — —
    Yes 0.61 0.47, 0.79 <0.001
sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.66 1.26, 2.21 <0.001
IMPUTED AGE VALUE COLLAPSED ABOVE 80 0.97 0.97, 0.98 <0.001
smoker


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.25 1.05, 1.48 0.012
sleep_hrs 0.81 0.77, 0.86 <0.001
income_cat 0.85 0.82, 0.89 <0.001
exercise * sex


    Yes * Female 1.00 0.71, 1.41 >0.9
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio

Testing the Interaction

mod_no_interact <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + sex + age + smoker + sleep_hrs + income_cat,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

anova(mod_no_interact, mod_interact, test = "LRT") |>
  kable(digits = 3,
        caption = "LR Test for Exercise × Sex Interaction") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
LR Test for Exercise × Sex Interaction
Resid. Df Resid. Dev Df Deviance Pr(>Chi)
4993 3870.197 NA NA NA
4992 3870.197 1 0 0.987

Interpretation: If the p-value for the LR test is small (< 0.05), the interaction is statistically significant: the effect of exercise differs by sex. If not, we can drop the interaction term and use the simpler main-effects model.

Visualizing the Interaction

ggpredict(mod_interact, terms = c("exercise", "sex")) |>
  plot() +
  labs(title = "Predicted Probability of FMD by Exercise and Sex",
       x = "Exercise", y = "Predicted Probability of FMD",
       color = "Sex") +
  theme_minimal()

Interpretation: If the lines are parallel, there is no interaction. If they cross or diverge, the effect of exercise differs across sex.

Stratified Odds Ratios

When an interaction is present, we report stratum-specific odds ratios rather than a single overall OR:

# Stratum-specific ORs from the interaction model
ggpredict(mod_interact, terms = c("exercise", "sex")) |>
  as_tibble() |>
  pivot_wider(id_cols = group, names_from = x, values_from = predicted) |>
  mutate(OR_yes_vs_no = (Yes / (1 - Yes)) / (No / (1 - No))) |>
  dplyr::select(Sex = group, OR_yes_vs_no) |>
  kable(digits = 3,
        col.names = c("Sex", "OR (Exercise: Yes vs. No)"),
        caption = "Stratum-Specific Odds Ratios for Exercise") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Stratum-Specific Odds Ratios for Exercise
Sex OR (Exercise: Yes vs. No)
Male 0.612
Female 0.614

Part 5: Goodness-of-Fit

Deviance

The deviance of a logistic model is:

\[D = -2 \ln \hat{L}\]

It is analogous to the residual sum of squares in linear regression: smaller is better. By itself, the deviance is hard to interpret, but differences in deviance between nested models follow a \(\chi^2\) distribution and form the basis of the LR test.

glance(mod_full) |>
  dplyr::select(null.deviance, df.null, deviance, df.residual, AIC, BIC) |>
  kable(digits = 1, caption = "Model Fit Statistics") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Model Fit Statistics
null.deviance df.null deviance df.residual AIC BIC
4251.3 4999 3628.5 4991 3646.5 3705.1

Quick check: The difference between null.deviance and deviance represents the improvement from adding all predictors to an intercept-only model. We can test this with an LR test on df.null - df.residual degrees of freedom.

Pseudo-R²

There is no exact analog of \(R^2\) for logistic regression, but several “pseudo-R²” measures exist. The most common is McFadden’s R²:

\[R^2_{\text{McFadden}} = 1 - \frac{\ln \hat{L}_{\text{full}}}{\ln \hat{L}_{\text{null}}}\]

Values between 0.2 and 0.4 are considered excellent fit.

performance::r2_mcfadden(mod_full)
## # R2 for Generalized Linear Regression
##        R2: 0.147
##   adj. R2: 0.146

Interpretation: McFadden’s R² should not be interpreted on the same scale as linear regression R². Values are typically much smaller (e.g., 0.1 may indicate a reasonable fit).

Hosmer-Lemeshow Test

The Hosmer-Lemeshow test assesses the agreement between predicted and observed event rates within deciles of predicted probability. A non-significant p-value indicates adequate fit.

hl_test <- hoslem.test(
  x = as.numeric(brfss_logistic$fmd) - 1,
  y = fitted(mod_full),
  g = 10
)

hl_test
## 
##  Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit (GOF) test
## 
## data:  as.numeric(brfss_logistic$fmd) - 1, fitted(mod_full)
## X-squared = 8.9639, df = 8, p-value = 0.3453

Interpretation: A small p-value (< 0.05) suggests that the model does not fit well in some regions of predicted probability. With large samples (like ours), the Hosmer-Lemeshow test can be over-powered and detect trivial misfit. Always pair it with a calibration plot.

Calibration Plot

brfss_logistic |>
  mutate(pred_prob = fitted(mod_full),
         obs_outcome = as.numeric(fmd) - 1,
         decile = ntile(pred_prob, 10)) |>
  group_by(decile) |>
  summarise(
    mean_pred = mean(pred_prob),
    mean_obs  = mean(obs_outcome),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  ggplot(aes(x = mean_pred, y = mean_obs)) +
  geom_abline(slope = 1, intercept = 0, color = "red", linetype = "dashed") +
  geom_point(size = 3, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_line(color = "steelblue") +
  labs(title = "Calibration Plot: Observed vs. Predicted Probability of FMD",
       subtitle = "Points should fall on the dashed line for perfect calibration",
       x = "Mean Predicted Probability (within decile)",
       y = "Observed Proportion (within decile)") +
  theme_minimal()

Interpretation: A well-calibrated model has points lying close to the 45-degree line. Systematic departures suggest miscalibration: points above the line indicate the model under-predicts; points below indicate over-prediction.

Part 6: Discrimination — ROC Curve and AUC

While calibration assesses how well predicted probabilities match observed rates, discrimination assesses how well the model separates events from non-events.

The ROC curve plots sensitivity (true positive rate) against 1 − specificity (false positive rate) across all possible probability cutoffs.

The AUC (area under the ROC curve) summarizes discrimination:

AUC Discrimination
0.5 No discrimination (chance)
0.6-0.7 Poor
0.7-0.8 Acceptable
0.8-0.9 Excellent
> 0.9 Outstanding 
roc_obj <- roc(
  response = brfss_logistic$fmd,
  predictor = fitted(mod_full),
  levels = c("No", "Yes"),
  direction = "<"
)

auc_value <- auc(roc_obj)

ggroc(roc_obj, color = "steelblue", linewidth = 1.2) +
  geom_abline(slope = 1, intercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  labs(title = "ROC Curve for Frequent Mental Distress Model",
       subtitle = paste0("AUC = ", round(auc_value, 3)),
       x = "Specificity", y = "Sensitivity") +
  theme_minimal()

Interpretation: An AUC of approximately 0.75-0.80 indicates acceptable to excellent discrimination, meaning the model can distinguish between individuals with and without FMD reasonably well. Note that calibration and discrimination are distinct concepts: a model can have good discrimination but poor calibration, or vice versa.

Part 7: Diagnostics for Logistic Regression

Linearity in the Logit (for continuous predictors)

For continuous predictors, logistic regression assumes a linear relationship between the predictor and the log-odds. We can check this with a smoothed plot of the logit against the predictor.

brfss_logistic |>
  mutate(logit_pred = predict(mod_full, type = "link")) |>
  ggplot(aes(x = age, y = logit_pred)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.2, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_smooth(method = "loess", se = FALSE, color = "darkorange") +
  labs(title = "Linearity in the Logit: Age",
       x = "Age (years)", y = "Predicted Log-Odds (logit)") +
  theme_minimal()

Interpretation: A roughly linear loess curve supports the linearity assumption. A clearly curved pattern suggests we should add a quadratic term or use a spline.

Influential Observations

Cook’s distance and standardized residuals from logistic regression can be examined the same way as in linear regression:

brfss_logistic |>
  mutate(cooks_d = cooks.distance(mod_full),
         row_id = row_number()) |>
  ggplot(aes(x = row_id, y = cooks_d)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.4, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 4 / nrow(brfss_logistic),
             linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  labs(title = "Cook's Distance for Logistic Regression Model",
       subtitle = "Red line: 4/n threshold",
       x = "Observation Index", y = "Cook's Distance") +
  theme_minimal()

Multicollinearity

VIFs work the same way as in linear regression:

vif(mod_full) |>
  as.data.frame() |>
  rownames_to_column("Predictor") |>
  kable(digits = 2, caption = "Variance Inflation Factors") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Variance Inflation Factors
Predictor vif(mod_full)
exercise 1.13
smoker 1.12
age 1.17
sex 1.01
sleep_hrs 1.02
income_cat 1.14
bmi 1.03
physhlth_days 1.20

Rule of thumb: VIF > 5 (or 10) indicates problematic multicollinearity.

Part 8: Reporting Logistic Regression Results

A publication-quality logistic regression table should include:

  1. Sample size and number of events
  2. Adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs
  3. p-values for each coefficient
  4. Model fit statistics (AIC or pseudo-R²) - (may declutter)
  5. Discrimination metric (AUC) - (methodological purposes)
mod_full |>
  tbl_regression(
    exponentiate = TRUE,
    label = list(
      exercise      ~ "Exercise (past 30 days)",
      smoker        ~ "Smoking status",
      age           ~ "Age",
      sex           ~ "Sex",
      sleep_hrs     ~ "Sleep hours",
      income_cat    ~ "Income category",
      bmi           ~ "BMI",
      physhlth_days ~ "Physically unhealthy days"
    )
  ) |>
  add_glance_source_note(
    #include = c(nobs, AIC, BIC),
    include = everything(),
    label = list(nobs ~ "N", AIC ~ "AIC", BIC ~ "BIC")
  ) |>
  bold_labels() |>
  bold_p() |>
  modify_caption("**Adjusted Odds Ratios for Frequent Mental Distress, BRFSS 2020**")
Adjusted Odds Ratios for Frequent Mental Distress, BRFSS 2020
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
Exercise (past 30 days)


    No — —
    Yes 0.82 0.68, 0.99 0.041
Smoking status


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.30 1.09, 1.56 0.004
Age 0.97 0.96, 0.97 <0.001
Sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.68 1.41, 1.98 <0.001
Sleep hours 0.86 0.81, 0.90 <0.001
Income category 0.91 0.87, 0.95 <0.001
BMI 1.01 0.99, 1.02 0.4
Physically unhealthy days 1.06 1.06, 1.07 <0.001
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio
Null deviance = 4,251; Null df = 4,999; Log-likelihood = -1,814; AIC = 3,646; BIC = 3,705; Deviance = 3,628; Residual df = 4,991; N = 5,000

Summary

Concept Tool / R function
Multiple logistic regression glm(y ~ x1 + x2 + ..., family = binomial)
Adjusted odds ratios tidy(model, exponentiate = TRUE)
Wald test Default in summary() and tidy()
Likelihood ratio test anova(reduced, full, test = "LRT")
Confidence intervals confint(model) (profile CI) or tidy(..., conf.int = TRUE)
Interaction glm(y ~ x1 * x2, ...); test with LR test
Pseudo-R² performance::r2_mcfadden()
Hosmer-Lemeshow ResourceSelection::hoslem.test()
Calibration plot Decile-based observed vs. predicted
ROC curve / AUC pROC::roc() and pROC::auc()
Diagnostics cooks.distance(), vif(), linearity plots
Publication table gtsummary::tbl_regression()

Next Lecture (April 16)

  • Polytomous logistic regression: outcomes with > 2 nominal categories
  • Ordinal logistic regression: outcomes with > 2 ordered categories
  • Proportional odds assumption and how to test it

References

  • Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Nizam, A., & Rosenberg, E. S. (2013). Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods (5th ed.), Chapter 22.
  • Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  • Steyerberg, E. W. (2019). Clinical Prediction Models (2nd ed.). Springer.

Part 9: In-Class Lab Activity

EPI 553 — Logistic Regression Part 2 Lab Due: End of class, April 14, 2026

Instructions

In this lab, you will build a multiple logistic regression model, conduct hypothesis tests, examine an interaction, and assess goodness-of-fit and discrimination. Use the same BRFSS 2020 logistic dataset from Part 1. Work through each task systematically. You may discuss concepts with classmates, but your written answers and R code must be your own.

Submission: Knit your .Rmd to HTML and upload to Brightspace by end of class.

Data for the Lab

Variable Description Type
fmd Frequent mental distress (No/Yes) Factor (outcome)
menthlth_days Mentally unhealthy days (0–30) Numeric
physhlth_days Physically unhealthy days (0–30) Numeric
sleep_hrs Sleep hours per night (1–14) Numeric
age Age in years (capped at 80) Numeric
sex Sex (Male/Female) Factor
bmi Body mass index Numeric
exercise Exercised in past 30 days (No/Yes) Factor
income_cat Household income category (1–8) Numeric
smoker Former/Never vs. Current Factor 
library(tidyverse)
library(broom)
library(knitr)
library(kableExtra)
library(gtsummary)
library(car)
library(ggeffects)
library(ResourceSelection)
library(pROC)
library(performance)

brfss_logistic <- readRDS(
  "/Users/zoya_hayes/Desktop/EPI553/EPI553_Coding/data/brfss_logistic_2020.rds"
)

Task 1: Build a Multiple Logistic Regression Model (15 points)

1a. (5 pts) Fit a multiple logistic regression model predicting fmd from at least 5 predictors of your choice.

# Full model with all predictors 
mod_full <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + smoker + age + sex + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial(link = "logit")
)

1b. (5 pts) Report the adjusted ORs with 95% CIs in a publication-quality table using tbl_regression().

# Use tbl_regression to report adjusted ORs with 95% CIs
mod_full |>
  tbl_regression(
    exponentiate = TRUE,
    label = list(
      exercise      ~ "Exercise (past 30 days)",
      smoker        ~ "Smoking status",
      age           ~ "Age (per year)",
      sex           ~ "Sex",
      sleep_hrs     ~ "Sleep hours",
      income_cat    ~ "Income category (per unit)",
      bmi           ~ "BMI",
      physhlth_days ~ "Physically unhealthy days"
    )
  ) |>
  bold_labels() |>
  bold_p()
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
Exercise (past 30 days)


    No — —
    Yes 0.82 0.68, 0.99 0.041
Smoking status


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.30 1.09, 1.56 0.004
Age (per year) 0.97 0.96, 0.97 <0.001
Sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.68 1.41, 1.98 <0.001
Sleep hours 0.86 0.81, 0.90 <0.001
Income category (per unit) 0.91 0.87, 0.95 <0.001
BMI 1.01 0.99, 1.02 0.4
Physically unhealthy days 1.06 1.06, 1.07 <0.001
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio

1c. (5 pts) Interpret the adjusted OR for two predictors of your choice in 1-2 sentences each. Make sure to mention what the OR represents (per unit change for continuous; reference category for categorical).

ExerciseYes (aOR = 0.82): Individuals who exercise have 18% decreased odds of experiencing frequent mental distress when compared to those who do not exercise controlling for smoking, age, sex, sleep_hrs, income_cat, bmi, and physhlth_days.

SexFemale (aOR = 1.68): Females have 68% higher odds of experiencing frequent mental distress when compared to men controlling for exercise, age, sleep_hrs, income_cat, bmi, and physhlth_days. —

Task 2: Wald and Likelihood Ratio Tests (15 points)

2a. (5 pts) Identify the Wald p-value for each predictor in your model from the tidy() or summary() output.

# Extract Wald p-value for all predictors 

tidy(mod_full, conf.int = TRUE, exponentiate = TRUE) |>
  mutate(across(c(estimate, std.error, statistic, conf.low, conf.high),
                \(x) round(x, 3)),
         p.value = format.pval(p.value, digits = 3)) |>
  kable(caption = "Wald Tests for Each Coefficient (Exponentiated)") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
Wald Tests for Each Coefficient (Exponentiated)
term estimate std.error statistic p.value conf.low conf.high
(Intercept) 2.198 0.356 2.215 0.02675 1.095 4.414
exerciseYes 0.820 0.097 -2.044 0.04095 0.679 0.993
smokerCurrent 1.301 0.091 2.890 0.00386 1.088 1.555
age 0.969 0.003 -11.225 < 2e-16 0.963 0.974
sexFemale 1.675 0.086 5.975 2.30e-09 1.415 1.985
sleep_hrs 0.857 0.027 -5.643 1.67e-08 0.812 0.904
income_cat 0.909 0.020 -4.703 2.56e-06 0.873 0.946
bmi 1.006 0.006 0.932 0.35113 0.993 1.018
physhlth_days 1.065 0.004 15.634 < 2e-16 1.057 1.073

2b. (5 pts) Fit a reduced model that drops one predictor of your choice. Perform a likelihood ratio test comparing the full and reduced models using anova(reduced, full, test = "LRT").

# Reduced model without sex predictor 
mod_reduced <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + smoker + age + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial(link = "logit")
)

# LR test 
anova(mod_reduced, mod_full, test = "LRT") |>
  kable(digits = 3,
        caption = "LR Test: Does adding sex improve the model?") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
LR Test: Does adding sex improve the model?
Resid. Df Resid. Dev Df Deviance Pr(>Chi)
4992 3664.526 NA NA NA
4991 3628.474 1 36.051 0

2c. (5 pts) Compare the conclusions from the Wald test (for the dropped predictor) and the LR test. Do they agree? In 2-3 sentences, explain when the two tests might disagree.

The dropped predictor in my model was sex. In the Wald test, the predictor had a p value of 2.30 e-09 suggesting it was a significant coefficient. After performing the LR test with a full model and a reduced model, the pr(>Chi) is less than .001 suggesting the dropped variable contributes to the model fit. These two tests do agree in their assessments and often do when there are large samples. The two tests may disagree when there are smaller samples or extreme estimates included in the dataset. —

Task 3: Test an Interaction (20 points)

3a. (5 pts) Fit a model that includes an interaction between two predictors of your choice (e.g., exercise * sex or smoker * age).

# Create model with exercise * smoker interaction
mod_interact <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise * smoker + age + sex + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

# Output a pretty table with the interaction term 
mod_interact |>
  tbl_regression(
    exponentiate = TRUE,
    label = list(
      exercise      ~ "Exercise (past 30 days)",
      smoker        ~ "Smoking status",
      age           ~ "Age (per year)",
      sex           ~ "Sex",
      sleep_hrs     ~ "Sleep hours",
      income_cat    ~ "Income category (per unit)",
      bmi           ~ "BMI",
      physhlth_days ~ "Physically unhealthy days"
    )
  ) |>
  bold_labels() |>
  bold_p()
Characteristic OR 95% CI p-value
Exercise (past 30 days)


    No — —
    Yes 0.79 0.61, 1.03 0.074
Smoking status


    Former/Never — —
    Current 1.24 0.91, 1.67 0.2
Age (per year) 0.97 0.96, 0.97 <0.001
Sex


    Male — —
    Female 1.68 1.42, 1.99 <0.001
Sleep hours 0.86 0.81, 0.90 <0.001
Income category (per unit) 0.91 0.87, 0.95 <0.001
BMI 1.01 0.99, 1.02 0.4
Physically unhealthy days 1.06 1.06, 1.07 <0.001
Exercise (past 30 days) * Smoking status


    Yes * Current 1.08 0.75, 1.55 0.7
Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio

3b. (5 pts) Perform a likelihood ratio test comparing the model with the interaction to the model without it.

# Create model without the interaction exercise * smoker
mod_no_interact <- glm(
  fmd ~ exercise + smoker + age + sex + sleep_hrs + income_cat + bmi + physhlth_days,
  data = brfss_logistic,
  family = binomial
)

# Conduct the LR test for Interaction
anova(mod_no_interact, mod_interact, test = "LRT") |>
  kable(digits = 3,
        caption = "LR Test for Exercise × Smoker Interaction") |>
  kable_styling(bootstrap_options = "striped", full_width = FALSE)
LR Test for Exercise × Smoker Interaction
Resid. Df Resid. Dev Df Deviance Pr(>Chi)
4991 3628.474 NA NA NA
4990 3628.305 1 0.169 0.681

3c. (5 pts) Create a visualization of the interaction using ggpredict() and plot().

# Create age by sex interaction visualization
ggpredict(mod_interact, terms = c("exercise", "smoker")) |>
  plot() +
  labs(title = "Predicted Probability of FMD by Exercise and Smoker",
       x = "Exercise", y = "Predicted Probability of FMD",
       color = "Smoker") +
  theme_minimal()

3d. (5 pts) In 3-4 sentences, interpret the interaction. Does the effect of one predictor differ across levels of the other? If statistically significant, report the stratum-specific odds ratios.

After conducting the interaction test, the output was a p-value of 0.681. Since the p-value for the test is above 0.05, the interaction term is not statistically significant and we can drop the interaction term and use the simpler main-effects model. The effect of one predictor does not appear to differ across the levels of the other. Furthermore in the plot, the lines appear to be parallel suggesting that there is no interaction between the two covariates. —

Task 4: Goodness-of-Fit and Discrimination (25 points)

4a. (5 pts) Compute McFadden’s pseudo-R² for your full model using performance::r2_mcfadden().

# Perform psuedo-R² for full model
performance::r2_mcfadden(mod_full)
## # R2 for Generalized Linear Regression
##        R2: 0.147
##   adj. R2: 0.146

4b. (5 pts) Perform the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test using ResourceSelection::hoslem.test(). Report the test statistic and p-value. Comment on the interpretation given your sample size.

# Perform the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test 
hl_test <- hoslem.test(
  x = as.numeric(brfss_logistic$fmd) - 1,
  y = fitted(mod_full),
  g = 10
)

hl_test
## 
##  Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit (GOF) test
## 
## data:  as.numeric(brfss_logistic$fmd) - 1, fitted(mod_full)
## X-squared = 8.9639, df = 8, p-value = 0.3453

This test provides a test statistic of 8.9639 and a p-value of 0.3453 suggesting that the model does fit well since it was not below 0.05. However, this comes with a caveat that with large samples such a 5,000, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test can be over-powered and detect trivial misfit.

4c. (5 pts) Create a calibration plot showing observed vs. predicted probabilities by decile. Comment on whether the model appears well calibrated.

# Create calibration plot for full model 
brfss_logistic |>
  mutate(pred_prob = fitted(mod_full),
         obs_outcome = as.numeric(fmd) - 1,
         decile = ntile(pred_prob, 10)) |>
  group_by(decile) |>
  summarise(
    mean_pred = mean(pred_prob),
    mean_obs  = mean(obs_outcome),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  ggplot(aes(x = mean_pred, y = mean_obs)) +
  geom_abline(slope = 1, intercept = 0, color = "red", linetype = "dashed") +
  geom_point(size = 3, color = "steelblue") +
  geom_line(color = "steelblue") +
  labs(title = "Calibration Plot: Observed vs. Predicted Probability of FMD",
       subtitle = "Points should fall on the dashed line for perfect calibration",
       x = "Mean Predicted Probability (within decile)",
       y = "Observed Proportion (within decile)") +
  theme_minimal()

The model does appear to be well calibrated because most of the points lie close to the 45-degree line. There are a few points above and below the line; however, they are not extremely far away.

4d. (10 pts) Compute and plot the ROC curve using pROC::roc(). Report the AUC. Based on the AUC value, how would you describe the model’s discrimination ability (poor, acceptable, excellent, outstanding)?

# Create ROC object to create ROC curve
roc_obj <- roc(
  response = brfss_logistic$fmd,
  predictor = fitted(mod_full),
  levels = c("No", "Yes"),
  direction = "<"
)

# Compute AUC value
auc_value <- auc(roc_obj)

# Plot the ROC curve
ggroc(roc_obj, color = "steelblue", linewidth = 1.2) +
  geom_abline(slope = 1, intercept = 1, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
  labs(title = "ROC Curve for Frequent Mental Distress Model with All Predictors",
       subtitle = paste0("AUC = ", round(auc_value, 3)),
       x = "Specificity", y = "Sensitivity") +
  theme_minimal()

The AUC value for this ROC curve is 0.77 suggesting an acceptable to excellent discrimination suggesting that the model can distinguish between individuals with and without frequent mental distress reasonably well. —

End of Lab Activity