Comparative Risk Measures for Heterogenous Populations

  • Louis Anthony CoxJr.
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 43)


Comparing population risks is a crucial part of many policy-directed risk analyses. In estimating the public health risks from operation of a power plant, sale of a new pharmaceutical product, exposure of individuals to ionizing radiation, reductions in automotive safety standards, or other proposed changes in the status quo, the risk analyst typically compares the estimated population risk in a target population in the presence of the proposed change with the estimated population risk in the same population (or in a matched control population) in the absence of the proposed change. If the absolute population risk at any time is defined as the average incidence rate of an undesirable event or “response” (such as death, illness or injury) in the target population, then the population risk attributed to the proposed change is commonly expressed through epidemiological measures such as relative risk (the ratio of response incidence rates with and without the proposed change), attributable risk (the difference between the two incidence rates), or the odds ratio (the ratio of the odds of response among members of the exposed and unexposed groups.) 1,2


Hazard Function Social Choice Population Risk Attributable Risk Future Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Anderson, et al, “Statistical Methods for Comparative Studies,” John Wiley, New York (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Schlesselman, “Case Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis,” Oxford University Press, London (1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. R. Blyth, On Simpson’s Paradox and the Sure Thing Principle, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67:364 (1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.A. Cox, Statistical Issues int he Estimation of Assigned Shares for Carcinogenesis Liability, Risk Analysis, 1987 (in press.)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.G. Manton, et al, Alternative Models for the Heterogeneity of Mortality Risks among the Aged, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81:395 (1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.D. Kalbfleisch, and R.L. Prentice, “The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data”, Wiley, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.S. Dyer and R.K. Sarin, Relative Risk Aversion, Management Science 28:875 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.E. Bell, Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty, Operations Research 30:961 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.C. Fishburn, Equity Axioms for Public Risks, Operations Research, 32:901 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.L. Keeney and R.L. Winkler, Evaluating Decision Strategies for Equity of Public Risks, Operations Research, 33:955 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Anthony CoxJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.U. S. West Advanced TechnologiesEnglewoodUSA

Personalised recommendations