Event Charts for the Analysis of Adverse Events in Longitudinal Studies: An Example from a Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To illustrate the use of one particular graphical method, the event chart (Lee et al., 2000), for the display of adverse events (AE’s), along with other important considerations such as time on treatment/intervention, severity of AE’s, treatment assignment, gender, etc., in longitudinal studies. These graphs can also include other key information such as efficacy measures and time-dependent covariates of interest. Methods: Emphasizing an application of a dose-ranging smoking cessation trial of naltrexone, we use event charts to convey a few potentially interesting findings from the complex data from this trial, with particular attention paid to the analysis of the safety (AE) data from the subset of individuals who dropped out before the end of the treatment phase of the study Results: The event charts conveyed some interesting findings regarding relationships between gender, AE’s and dropout time, as well as between treatment group, AE’s and dropout time, and between AE burden and dropout time. Conclusion: Event charts can be one of the helpful exploratory tools in investigating the pattern of adverse events and their possible association with covariates and time on treatment/intervention in longitudinal studies. Findings from the event chart analysis of AE’s could potentially lead to more formal statistical analysis and modeling. Software for generating these event charts is available in R and S-Plus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".