Application of lag‐time into exposure definitions to control for protopathic bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To control for protopathic bias, some studies have incorporated the concept of lag-time into their exposure definition (time period before the index date that was not considered in assessing exposure). The objective of this study was to introduce a procedure to identify the best lag-time to be applied in studies where control for protopathic bias is required. METHODS: We used data from a case-control study carried out to assess the association between exposure to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk of gastric cancer, using RAMQ databases. Exposure was defined as the number of defined daily doses of PPIs dispensed during the 5-year period prior to the index date (divided into four quartiles). Thirty-one different lag-times were applied (0-30 months) based on 1-month intervals. Logistic regression was used to estimate the matched odds ratio (OR) for each lag-time. The change point in the ln(ORs) was identified by applying a two-compartmental model and a segmented regression model. RESULTS: A trend of decreasing ORs was found with the application of an increasing lag-time. As an illustration, the ORs for the 1st quartile of defined daily doses, when applying the 31 different lag-times, ranged between 3.52 when applying a 0 lag-time and 0.97 when applying a 30 months lag-time. Applying the two methods for the different lag-times showed that the ORs stabilized at around 6 months. CONCLUSION: For the purpose of controlling for protopathic bias in pharmacoepidemiological studies, we have provided a method to assess the most appropriate lag-time that should be applied for the assessment of drug exposure.
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 | 0.150 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".