MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968677777 · doi:10.1002/sim.3829

Bayesian adjustment for exposure misclassification in case–control studies

2010· article· en· W1968677777 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBayesian probabilityStatisticsContext (archaeology)Observational studyEconometricsComputer scienceSample size determinationObservational errorExplanatory powerMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor measurement of explanatory variables occurs frequently in observational studies. Error-prone observations may lead to biased estimation and loss of power in detecting the impact of explanatory variables on the response. We consider misclassified binary exposure in the context of case-control studies, assuming the availability of validation data to inform the magnitude of the misclassification. A Bayesian adjustment to correct the misclassification is investigated. Simulation studies show that the Bayesian method can have advantages over non-Bayesian counterparts, particularly in the face of a rare exposure, small validation sample sizes, and uncertainty about whether exposure misclassification is differential or non-differential. The method is illustrated via application to several real studies.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.352 · 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