0
$\begingroup$

I wish to know if there is a difference between being an independent predictor of a variable or an specific event, and to be independently associated with i.e. hormones are independent predictors of total cholesterol levels or hormones are not independently associated with total cholesterol.

Because in my mind looks like from a semathic point of view (or even clinical point of view) is the same or at least it is used both ways.But the devil is in the details, and if it's not the same statistically speaking, it should not be the same medically speaking or epidemiologically.

I have gone through thread

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

TL;DR. When one makes a distinction between the two terms, which is often not the case, a predictor is an independent variable that is BOTH unconfounded AND associated with the outcome variable, which means that there is a causal relationship between the independent variable and the outcome variable.

In short, the term independent predictor suggests that there is an unconfounded causal relationship between the predictor and the outcome variable. For the record, hormone levels are independent predictors and all independent predictors are independently associated with the outcome variable. The difference between the two terms stems from the fact that independent predictors are unconfounded.

examples: ice cream consumption and drowning are independently associated, when ice cream consumption increases drownings increase. However, ice cream is not an independent predictor of drownings because they are both affected by a confounding variable, season. In the summer people swim more and eat more ice cream, but its the increase in swimming that leads to increased drowning.

In this case, season and swimming would both be independent predictors. In this case the coming of summer is causally linked to increase swimming rates which is causally linked to drowning. However, there are other predictors that influence drowning that may or may not be influenced by season, such as increased boating or swimming education services.

The TL;DR is that in practice, they are frequently viewed as being interchangeable. However, if you want to be strict and technical, then one could claim that an independent predictor is a variable with an unconfounded association with the outcome variable and thus if you manipulated the independent variable, a predictor would be expected to cause some significant change a non-predictor wouldn't. E.g., swimming is a predictor of drowning, ice cream consumption is not because eliminating swimming would significantly reduce drownings but eliminating ice cream consumption would not have any significant impact even though their natural observed values are associated.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I just leave the article of estrogen is not independent predictor of lipid profile pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23531683 $\endgroup$ Commented May 31 at 7:19
  • $\begingroup$ The article does not specify what they mean by independent predictor. Given that they found that sex hormones accounted for 3ish percent of the variation in the outcome variable it would be an independent predictor (assuming no confounding variables). They’re not the only independent predictor. But they didn’t offer evidence of endogeneity and an exogenous variable is, by definition, independent. Without them defining the phrase as they used it, there’s no way to be certain, but I suspect they simply used the term improperly. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 1 at 1:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.