Regression discontinuity designs are underutilized in medicine, epidemiology, and public health: a review of current and best practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Regression discontinuity (RD) designs allow for rigorous causal inference when patients receive a treatment based on scoring above or below a cutoff point on a continuously measured variable. We provide an introduction to the theory of RD and a systematic review and assessment of the RD literature in medicine, epidemiology, and public health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We review the necessary conditions for valid RD results, provide a practical guide to RD implementation, compare RD to other methodologies, and conduct a systematic review of the RD literature in PubMed. RESULTS: We describe five key elements of analysis all RD studies should report, including tests of validity conditions and robustness checks. Thirty two empirical RD studies in PubMed met our selection criteria. Most of the 32 RD articles analyzed the effectiveness of social policies or mental health interventions, with only two evaluating clinical interventions to improve physical health. Seven out of the 32 studies reported on all the five key elements. CONCLUSION: Increased use of RD provides an exciting opportunity for obtaining unbiased causal effect estimates when experiments are not feasible or when we want to evaluate programs under "real-life" conditions. Although treatment eligibility in medicine, epidemiology, and public health is commonly determined by threshold rules, use of RD in these fields has been very limited until now.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".