MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043714498 · doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1177

Interval Estimation of Some Epidemiological Measures of Association

2010· article· en· W2043714498 on OpenAlexafffund
Tasneem Zaihra, S. R. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biostatistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticsConfidence intervalMathematicsEstimatorRelative riskInterval estimationCoverage probabilityEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In epidemiological cohort studies, the probability of developing a disease for individuals in a treatment/intervention group is compared with that of a control group. The groups involve varying cluster sizes, and the binary responses within each cluster cannot be assumed independently. Three major measures of association used to report the efficacy of treatments or effectiveness of public health intervention programs in case of prospective studies are Risk Difference (RD), Risk Ratio (RR) and Relative Risk Difference (RED). The preference of one measure of association over the other in drawing statistical inference depends on design of study. Lui (2004) discusses a number of methods of constructing confidence intervals for each of these measures. Specifically, Lui (2004) discusses four methods for RD, four methods for RR and three methods for RED. For the construction of confidence intervals for RD, Paul and Zaihra (2008) compare the four methods discussed by Lui (2004), using extensive simulations with a method based on an estimator of the variance of a ratio estimator by Cochran (1977) and a method based on a sandwich estimator of the variance of the regression estimator using the generalized estimating equations approach of Zeger and Liang (1986). Paul and Zaihra (2008) conclude that the method based on an estimate of the variance of a ratio estimator performs best overall. In this paper, we extend the two new methodologies introduced in Paul and Zaihra (2008) to confidence interval construction of the risk measures RR and RED. Extensive simulations show that the method based on an estimate of the variance of a ratio estimator performs best overall for constructing confidence interval for the other two risk measures RR and RED as well. This method involves a very simple variance expression which can be implemented with a very few computer codes. Therefore, it can be considered as an easily implementable alternative for all the three measures of association.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.312
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.312
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of BiostatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207