Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is concern that participation in case-control studies has declined. To address this question, the author and colleagues reviewed data from 82 US and Canadian case-control studies published in epidemiologic journals during two periods: 1988-1990 and 1997-January 1999. The median year of data collection, which ranged from 1972 to 1996, was the primary independent variable. Reported response among both cases and controls remained constant over this time period. The regression coefficients (beta) were small: For each year, there was a change of 0.15 percentage points for cases (p = 0.56) and -0.16 percentage points for controls (p = 0.54). Possible confounders included the location where the study had been conducted and, for cases, the disease under study (cancer vs. others). After adjustment for these factors in case groups, there was still no association between year of data collection and response: For each year, there was a change of -0.20 percentage points (p = 0.43). After adjustment of results for study location among controls, there was a moderate decline over time: For each year, there was a change of -0.44 percentage points (p = 0.12). Overall, reported response in more recent studies was similar to that in earlier studies; for control groups, this may reflect changes in locations where the studies were conducted.
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 | 0.294 | 0.523 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".