{"id":25,"date":"2019-04-10T13:28:35","date_gmt":"2019-04-10T13:28:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/?page_id=25"},"modified":"2021-08-23T18:56:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-23T18:56:31","slug":"lesson-7-categorical-outcomes-odds-ratio-and-risk-assessment","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/lesson-7-categorical-outcomes-odds-ratio-and-risk-assessment\/","title":{"rendered":"Lesson 7: Categorical Outcomes, Odds Ratio and Risk Assessment"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"\"><ul class=\"nav nav-tabs\" id=\"oscitas-tabs-0\"><li class=\"active\"><a class=\"\" href=\"#pane-0-0\" data-toggle=\"tab\">Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a class=\"\" href=\"#pane-0-1\" data-toggle=\"tab\">Terminology<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a class=\"\" href=\"#pane-0-2\" data-toggle=\"tab\">Basic Concepts<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a class=\"\" href=\"#pane-0-3\" data-toggle=\"tab\">Reported Results<\/a><\/li><li class=\"\"><a class=\"\" href=\"#pane-0-4\" data-toggle=\"tab\">Assessment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"tab-content\"><div class=\"tab-pane active\" id=\"pane-0-0\"><div id=\"quicktabs-tabpage-lesson_5_-0\" class=\"quicktabs-tabpage \">\n<article id=\"node-94\" class=\"node node-book clearfix\">\n<header><\/header>\n<div class=\"field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden\">\n<div class=\"field-items\">\n<div class=\"field-item even\">\n<div class=\"tex2jax\">\n<div class=\"intro\">\n<div class=\"introtopper\">This lesson reviews basic tests for analysis of frequency data. At the end of the lesson, you will be able to:<\/div>\n<ol>\n<li>Understand data represented in a contingency table<\/li>\n<li>Define proportion, odds, odds ratio, and relative risk<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"tab-pane \" id=\"pane-0-1\"><div id=\"quicktabs-tabpage-lesson_5_-1\" class=\"quicktabs-tabpage quicktabs-hide\">\n<article id=\"node-95\" class=\"node node-book clearfix\">\n<header><\/header>\n<div class=\"field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden\">\n<div class=\"field-items\">\n<div class=\"field-item even\">\n<div class=\"tex2jax\">\n<div class=\"terminology\">\n<p>Terms that appear frequently throughout this lesson are defined below:<\/p>\n<table class=\"table\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"termdef\"><strong>Term<\/strong><\/td>\n<td class=\"termdef\"><strong>Definition<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Proportion<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>A mathematical value describing the numerator, which is also included in the denominator<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Contingency table<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Frequency distributions of multiple variables represented in a single table<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Odds<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>The number of ways an event can occur relative to the number of ways an event cannot occur<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Odds ratio<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>The odds of exposure among diseased (cases) versus non-diseased (controls)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Relative risk<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>The likelihood of developing the disease\/outcome given that one is exposed divided by the likelihood of developing the disease\/outcome given that one is non-exposed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Measure of disease association<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>The magnitude of the effect of an exposure on an outcome<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"tab-pane \" id=\"pane-0-2\"><div id=\"quicktabs-tabpage-lesson_5_-2\" class=\"quicktabs-tabpage quicktabs-hide\">\n<article id=\"node-96\" class=\"node node-book clearfix\">\n<header><\/header>\n<div class=\"field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden\">\n<div class=\"field-items\">\n<div class=\"field-item even\">\n<div class=\"tex2jax\">\n<h2>Proportion<\/h2>\n<p>A proportion is a mathematical comparison between two numbers (e.g., how many women are in the room versus the total number of people in the room). The numerator (e.g. how many women are in the room) is included in the denominator (e.g. total number of people in the room). It can be written in two ways:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>With a colon (e.g., 5:10)<\/li>\n<li>As equivalent fractions (e.g., 5\/10 = 1\/2)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h2>Odds<\/h2>\n<p>Odds reflect the number of ways an event can occur relative to the number of ways an event cannot occur. For example, if 4 out of 10 people developed a disease:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Proportion: includes the numerator in the denominator, so the proportion is 4\/10 or 40% of people developed the disease<\/li>\n<li>Odds: does not include the numerator in the denominator, so odds are 4\/6<\/li>\n<li><strong>both present the same information but in different ways<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Odds ratio<\/h2>\n<p>The odds ratio (OR) is one of several statistics that have become<strong> increasingly important in clinical research <\/strong>and decision-making. The odds ratio:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Measures the ratio of odds that an exposure occurred to the odds that an exposure did not occur<\/li>\n<li>Evaluates whether the odds of a certain outcome is the same for two groups<\/li>\n<li>Is a measure of effect size (i.e., it determines the strength of the relationship between two variables)<\/li>\n<li>Can be hand calculated in a clinic if necessary to determine the odds of a particular event for a patient at risk for that event<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Odds ratio data is most commonly presented in a <strong>contingency table<\/strong>, which displays the frequency distribution of multiple variables in a single table. The most common construction is a 2 \u00d7 2 table although larger tables exist:<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"col\"><\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Disease<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">No Disease<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Totals<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align: middle;\">Exposure<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">a<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">b<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">a+b<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align: middle;\">No Exposure<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">c<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">d<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">c+d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align: middle;\">Totals<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">a+c<\/td>\n<td class=\"boldCell\">b+d<\/td>\n<td style=\"vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;\"><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">Based on this contingency table:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">odds of exposure in diseased = a\/c<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">odds of exposure in non-diseased = b\/d<\/span><\/li>\n<li>exposure OR = (a\/c)\/(b\/d) or (ad)\/(bc)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Relative risk<\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">Relative risk (RR) is the likelihood of developing the disease\/outcome given that one is <em>exposed<\/em> divided by the individual likelihood of developing the disease\/outcome given that one is <em>non-exposed.<\/em> Based on the contingency table above, <strong>RR = [a\/(a+b)]\/[c\/(c+d)].<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">RR = 1, there is no association between risk in exposed and risk in non-exposed<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">RR &gt; 1, <em>increased<\/em> risk for those exposed<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\">RR &lt; 1, <em>decreased<\/em> risk for those exposed<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\"><em>In the case of a <strong> disease <\/strong>as the outcome of interest:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\"><strong>RR<\/strong> is the likelihood of developing the disease given that one is exposed divided by the likelihood of developing the disease given that one is non-exposed. <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14px;\"><strong>OR <\/strong>is the odds of exposure among diseased (cases) versus non-diseased (controls).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"tab-pane \" id=\"pane-0-3\"><div id=\"quicktabs-tabpage-lesson_5_-3\" class=\"quicktabs-tabpage quicktabs-hide\">\n<article id=\"node-97\" class=\"node node-book clearfix\">\n<header><\/header>\n<div class=\"field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden\">\n<div class=\"field-items\">\n<div class=\"field-item even\">\n<div class=\"tex2jax\">\n<h2>Odds ratio<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Methods:<\/strong> Subjects were 49,985 women who completed Prenatal Substance Abuse Screening Questionnaires at obstetric clinics. Four groups were compared: women screened\/assessed positive and treated by Early Start (&#8216;SAT&#8217;, <em>n<\/em>=2,073); women screened\/assessed positive without treatment (&#8216;SA&#8217;, <em>n<\/em>=1,203); women screened positive only (&#8216;S&#8217;, <em>n<\/em>=156); controls who screened negative (<em>n<\/em>=46,553).<\/p>\n<div class=\"table-responsive\">\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" colspan=\"4\" rowspan=\"1\" scope=\"colgroup\">Study Group<br \/>\nOdds Ratios<sup>a<\/sup> (95% CI)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"text-align: center; border-right: 1px solid #efefef;\" scope=\"col\"><strong>Outcome<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\">Screened positive, assessed and treated (SAT) (reference)<\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\">Screened positive and assessed (SA)<\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\">Screened positive only (S)<\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\">Controls (screened negative)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Neonatal-assisted ventilation<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.4 (1.0-2.0)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.2 (1.1-4.4)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.8 (0.6-1.0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Low birth weight &lt; 2500 g<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.2 (0.9-1.6)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.8 (1.1-3.1)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.7 (0.6-0.9)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Preterm delivery &lt; 37 weeks<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.2 (0.9-1.5)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.1 (1.3-3.2)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.8 (0.7-1.0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Neonatal intensive care unit admission<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0 (0.8-1.2)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.4 (0.9-2.1)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.6 (0.6-0.7)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Infant rehospitalization<sup>b<\/sup><\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.6 (0.4-1.0)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.4 (0.6-3.6)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.2 (0.9-1.6)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Infant emergency department visit<sup>c<\/sup><\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0 (0.8-1.3)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.9 (0.5-1.7)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.9 (0.8-1.0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Placental abruption<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.3 (0.6-2.6)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">6.8 (3.0-15.5)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.1 (0.7-1.7)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Preterm labor<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.3 (1.0-1.6)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.3 (1.5-3.5)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.8 (0.7-1.0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Cesarean delivery<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.1 (0.9-1.3)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.7 (0.4-1.1)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0 (0.9-1.1)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Intrauterine fetal demise<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.0<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.0 (0.7-5.5)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">16.2 (6.0-43.8)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.5 (0.7-3.3)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"note\"><sup>a<\/sup>Estimated from logistic regressions, controlled for maternal age, ethnicity, and prenatal care<br \/>\n<sup>b<\/sup>Within 30 days of discharge from birth hospitalization<br \/>\n<sup>c<\/sup>Within 180 days of discharge from birth hospitalization<\/p>\n<p><strong>Results:<\/strong> All but two ORs (low birth weight and NICU admission) comparing the controls to the SAT group were not significantly less than 1.0. All the ORs with the exception of two (cesarean section and infant emergency department visits) comparing the S group to the SAT group were elevated, particularly for placental abruption (OR=6.8) and intrauterine fetal demise (OR=16.2).<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"citation\">Goler et al. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/jp200870\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Substance abuse treatment linked with prenatal visits improves perinatal outcomes: a new standard.<\/a> <cite>J Perinatol.<\/cite> 2008;28(9):597-603.<\/div>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Relative risk<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Methods:<\/strong> Data on the relative risk (RR) of cardiovascular events with individual NSAIDs were derived from meta-analyses of randomised trials and controlled observational studies.<\/p>\n<div class=\"table-responsive\">\n<table class=\"table-condensed\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"col\"><strong>NSAID<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" colspan=\"4\" rowspan=\"1\" scope=\"colgroup\"><strong>Serious Cardiovascular Events; RR (95% CI) vs. Non-Use of NSAIDs<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"1\" scope=\"colgroup\"><strong>Observational Studies (Outcomes)<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"1\" scope=\"colgroup\"><strong>Randomized Studies (Outcomes)<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\"><strong>Hernandez-Diaz et al., 2006 (AMI)<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\"><strong>McGettigan et al., 2011 (CV Events)<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\"><strong>Trelle et. al, 2011 (APTC Composite Outcomes)<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"text-align: center;\" scope=\"col\"><strong>Kearney et al., 2006 (CV Events)<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Etoricoxib<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.05 (1.45-2.88)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.53 (0.74-3.17)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Etodolac<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.55 (1.28-1.87)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Rofecoxib<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.27 (1.12-1.44)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.45 (1.33-1.59)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.44 (1.00-1.99)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.42 (1.13-1.78)<br \/>\n(with celecoxib)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Diclofenac<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.39 (1.18-1.64)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.40 (1.27-1.55)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.60 (0.85-2.99)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.63 (1.12-2.37)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Indometacin<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.30 (1.19-1.41)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Meloxicam<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.20 (1.07-1.33)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ibuprofen<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.01 (0.89-1.15)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.18 (1.11-1.25)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">2.26 (1.11-4.89)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.51 (0.96-2.37)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Celecoxib<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.97 (0.86-1.08)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.17 (1.08-1.27)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.43 (0.94-2.16)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.42 (1.13-1.78)<br \/>\n(with rofecoxib)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Naproxen<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.98 (0.87-1.11)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.09 (1.02-1.16)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.22 (0.78-1.93)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">0.92 (0.67-1.26)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Piroxicam<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">1.08 (0.91-1.30)<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<td style=\"text-align: center;\">nr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p><strong>Results: <\/strong>Three drugs (i.e., rofecoxib, diclofenac, and etoricoxib) ranked consistently highest in terms of cardiovascular risk compared with nonuse. Naproxen was associated with a low risk. NOTE: Table represents some but not all studies included in the meta-analysis.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"citation\">McGettigan P, Henry D.<a href=\"http:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosmedicine\/article?id=10.1371\/journal.pmed.1001388\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"> Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that elevate cardiovascular risk: an examination of sales and essential medicines lists in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.<\/a> <cite>PLoS med. <\/cite>2013; 10(2): e1001388.<\/div>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div><\/div><div class=\"tab-pane \" id=\"pane-0-4\"><div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-7\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"7\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"Assessment (For Lesson 7)\"><\/iframe><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25"}],"version-history":[{"count":52,"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1426,"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25\/revisions\/1426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.media.unc.edu\/biostatistics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}