Comparison of alternative models for linking drug exposure with adverse effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacoepidemiology investigates associations between time-varying medication use/dose and risk of adverse events. Applied research typically relies on a priori chosen simple conventional models, such as current dose or any use in the past 3 months. However, different models imply different risk predictions, and only one model can be etiologically correct in any specific applications. We first formally defined several candidate models mapping the time vector of past drug doses (X (t), t = 1, … ,u) into the value of a time-varying exposure metric M(u) at current time u. In addition to conventional one-parameter models, we considered two-parameter models accounting for recent dose increase or withdrawal and a flexible spline-based weighted cumulative exposure (WCE) model that defines M(u) as the weighted sum of past doses. In simulations, we generated event times assuming one of the models was correct and then analyzed the data with all candidate models. We demonstrated that the minimum AIC criterion is able to identify the correct model as the best-fitting model or one of the equivalent (within 4 AIC points of the minimum) models in a vast majority of simulated samples, especially with 500 or more events. We also showed how relying on an incorrect a priori chosen model may largely reduce the power to test for an association. Finally, we demonstrated how the flexible WCE estimates may help with model diagnostics even if the correct model is not WCE. We illustrated the practical advantages of AIC-based a posteriori model selection and WCE modeling in a real-life pharmacoepidemiology example.
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 | 0.035 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".