MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045286429 · doi:10.1002/sim.3751

Assessment of risks by predicting counterfactuals

2009· article· en· W2045286429 on OpenAlexaff
Guangyong Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual conditionalEconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyCounterfactual thinking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk assessment is fundamental to most epidemiological and biomedical investigations. In this article, risks are assessed in terms of risk difference and risk ratio by predicting counterfactual outcomes. Models considered for binary outcomes are probit, logistic, and extreme-value regressions. New confidence intervals for the effect measures are proposed using the method of variance estimates recovery, and evaluated by a simulation study. A SAS macro is provided for the calculations. A risk ratio obtained using counterfactuals is also compared in the simulation with that directly estimated from the modified Poisson model to answer a recent concern about the validity of the latter approach. Two examples are used to illustrate the methods.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207