{"id":"W2063548620","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.016","title":"Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","topic":"Advanced Causal Inference Techniques","field":"Mathematics","cited_by":497,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences","funders":"","keywords":"Propensity score matching; Observational study; Confounding; Medicine; Odds ratio; Statistics; Regression analysis; Hazard ratio; Confidence interval; Internal medicine; Mathematics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","metaepi_broad","research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.1539406,0.0007703802,0.02802663,0.000442475,0.00006792699,0.000008690608,0.00105748,0.001108347,0.0000200442],"category_scores_gemma":[0.7218381,0.0004453543,0.00273617,0.0005585724,0.0001885702,0.0002682251,0.0002865857,0.003657988,0.00001330534],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005815147,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001017951,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000001339391,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000007855634,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9296362,0.03670861,0.03147855,0.0008736961,0.0006791626,0.0006237342],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7050266,0.2670707,0.02424546,0.001225685,0.001889281,0.0005423374],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"systematic_review","study_design_gemma":"systematic_review","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001443627,0.0003804039,0.000008518411,0.8017644,0.0007723976,0.0001139093,0.00005016094,0.0001886273,5.110324e-8,0.01413237,0.01195815,0.1704866],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002761305,0.0004171562,0.00000324091,0.786927,0.001795257,0.0003395319,0.000008575838,0.0005853752,4.650059e-8,0.1885306,0.02076584,0.0003512391],"study_design_candidate":"systematic_review","study_design_consensus":"systematic_review","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.000004944319,0.9073538,0.08646218,0.002881074,0.0004685654,0.002688844,0.00004521265,0.00004040225,0.00005503268],"genre_scores_gemma":[7.95075e-7,0.6119496,0.3849775,0.002234484,0.0006066497,0.000140476,0.00001754413,0.00003995965,0.00003304692],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5678974,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997998,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.9794651742196404,"score_gpt":0.7432106376404088,"score_spread":0.2362545365792316,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}