On the analysis of composite measures of quality in medical research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite endpoints are commonplace in biomedical research. The complex nature of many health conditions and medical interventions demand that composite endpoints be employed. Different approaches exist for the analysis of composite endpoints. A Monte Carlo simulation study was employed to assess the statistical properties of various regression methods for analyzing binary composite endpoints. We also applied these methods to data from the BETTER trial which employed a binary composite endpoint. We demonstrated that type 1 error rates are poor for the Negative Binomial regression model and the logistic generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Bias was minimal and power was highest in the binomial logistic regression model, the linear regression model, the Poisson (corrected for over-dispersion) regression model and the common effect logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model. Convergence was poor in the distinct effect GEE models, the logistic GLMM and some of the zero-one inflated beta regression models. Considering the BETTER trial data, the distinct effect GEE model struggled with convergence and the collapsed composite method estimated an effect, which was greatly attenuated compared to other models. All remaining models suggested an intervention effect of similar magnitude. In our simulation study, the binomial logistic regression model (corrected for possible over/under-dispersion), the linear regression model, the Poisson regression model (corrected for over-dispersion) and the common effect logistic GEE model appeared to be unbiased, with good type 1 error rates, power and convergence properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.508 | 0.965 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; both teacher heads 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".