Selecting the Optimal Transformation of a Continuous Covariate in Cox's Regression: Implications for Hypothesis Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many exposures in epidemiological studies have nonlinear effects and the problem is to choose an appropriate functional relationship between such exposures and the outcome. One common approach is to investigate several parametric transformations of the covariate of interest, and to select a posteriori the function that fits the data the best. However, such approach may result in an inflated Type I error. Methods: Through a simulation study, we generated data from Cox's models with different transformations of a single continuous covariate. We investigated the Type I error rate and the power of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) corresponding to three different procedures that considered the same set of parametric dose-response functions. The first unconditional approach did not involve any model selection, while the second conditional approach was based on a posteriori selection of the parametric function. The proposed third approach was similar to the second except that it used a corrected critical value for the LRT to ensure a correct Type I error. Results: The Type I error rate of the second approach was two times higher than the nominal size. For simple monotone dose-response, the corrected test had similar power as the unconditional approach, while for non monotone, dose-response, it had a higher power. A real-life application that focused on the effect of body mass index on the risk of coronary heart disease death, illustrated the advantage of the proposed approach. Conclusion: Our results confirm that a posteriori selecting the functional form of the dose-response induces a Type I error inflation. The corrected procedure, which can be applied in a wide range of situations, may provide a good trade-off between Type I error and power.
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 | 0.098 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".