Estimation and Confidence Regions for Multi‐Dimensional Effective Dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of finding confidence regions for multiple predictor variables corresponding to given expected values of a response variable has not been adequately resolved. Motivated by an example from a study on hyperbaric exposure using a logistic regression model, we develop a conceptual framework for the estimation of the multi-dimensional effective dose for binary outcomes. The k -dimensional effective dose can be determined by conditioning on k - 1 components and solving for the last component as a conditional univariate effective dose. We consider various approaches for calculating confidence regions for the multi-dimensional effective dose and compare them via a simulation study for a range of possible designs. We analyze data related to decompression sickness to illustrate our procedure. Our results provide a practical approach to finding confidence regions for predictor variables for a given response value.
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 | 0.164 | 0.564 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".