{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029867256637168143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004424778761061947, 'mean_word_length': 5.073825503355705, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ding and VanderWeele's bound and the population attributable fraction.

To the Editor: Ding and VanderWeele’s article on sensitivity analysis for uncontrolled confounding published in this journal was a major step forward for quantitative bias analysis.1 Given an observed effect estimate, the authors define a bound (B) for the impact of uncontrolled confounding. We make the observation that, while not equivalent in terms of subject matter, there is a simple algebraic equivalence between the calculations of B and the familiar epidemiologic measure of population attributable fraction (PAF), which measures “the fraction of all cases of a disease or other adverse condition in a population that is attributable to a specific exposure.”2 As B is a relative risk (RR) and PAF an absolute proportion (P) we use the association between these measures (assuming RR ≥ 1; if RR < 1 the inverse can be used).