The distinction between additive risk models and additive relative risk models is important when nonadditivity is used as a criterion for interdependence of causal effects (causal interaction). I show here that, in stratified studies, additive relative risk models do not provide the often-assumed correspondence between additivity and absence of causal interaction. Under the causal models of Rothman and others, complete assessment of causal interaction requires that one fit additive risk models; in matched case-control studies, such fitting may require external information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sander Greenland (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: