Efficient analysis of case‐control studies with sample weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of population-based case-control studies with complex sampling designs is challenging because the sample selection probabilities (and, therefore, the sample weights) depend on the response variable and covariates. Commonly, the design-consistent (weighted) estimators of the parameters of the population regression model are obtained by solving (sample) weighted estimating equations. Weighted estimators, however, are known to be inefficient when the weights are highly variable as is typical for case-control designs. In this paper, we propose two alternative estimators that have higher efficiency and smaller finite sample bias compared with the weighted estimator. Both methods incorporate the information included in the sample weights by modeling the sample expectation of the weights conditional on design variables. We discuss benefits and limitations of each of the two proposed estimators emphasizing efficiency and robustness. We compare the finite sample properties of the two new estimators and traditionally used weighted estimators with the use of simulated data under various sampling scenarios. We apply the methods to the U.S. Kidney Cancer Case-Control Study to identify risk factors. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
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 | 0.154 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".