MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970654520 · doi:10.1002/sim.3701

Flexible modeling of the cumulative effects of time‐dependent exposures on the hazard

2009· article· en· W1970654520 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Pierre Sylvestre, Michał Abrahamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsCovariateProportional hazards modelStatisticsEconometricsHazardRegression analysisMedicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many epidemiological studies assess the effects of time-dependent exposures, where both the exposure status and its intensity vary over time. One example that attracts public attention concerns pharmacoepidemiological studies of the adverse effects of medications. The analysis of such studies poses challenges for modeling the impact of complex time-dependent drug exposure, especially given the uncertainty about the way effects cumulate over time and about the etiological relevance of doses taken in different time periods. We present a flexible method for modeling cumulative effects of time-varying exposures, weighted by recency, represented by time-dependent covariates in the Cox proportional hazards model. The function that assigns weights to doses taken in the past is estimated using cubic regression splines. We validated the method in simulations and applied it to re-assess the association between exposure to a psychotropic drug and fall-related injuries in the elderly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.227
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations162
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207