MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541729297 · doi:10.1002/sim.4334

Variance estimation and confidence intervals for the standardized mortality ratio with application to the assessment of a cancer screening program

2011· article· en· W1541729297 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Denis Talbot, Thierry Duchesne, Jacques Brisson, Nathalie Vandal

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatisticsStandardized mortality ratioEstimatorStatisticVariance (accounting)Standard errorMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of a cancer screening program can be measured through the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) statistic. The numerator of the SMR is the observed number of deaths from the screened disease among participants in the screening program, whereas the denominator of the SMR is an estimate of the expected number of deaths in these participants under the assumption that the screening program has no effect. In this article, we propose a variance estimator for the denominator of the SMR when this expected number of deaths is estimated with Sasieni's method. We give both a general formula for this variance as well as formulas for specific disease incidence and survival estimators. We show how this new variance estimator can be used to build confidence intervals for the SMR. We investigate the coverage properties of various types of confidence intervals by simulation and find that intervals that make use of the proposed variance estimator perform well. We illustrate the method by applying it to the Québec Breast Cancer Screening program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207