MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079826663 · doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1210

Model Checking with Residuals for g-estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes

2010· article· en· W2079826663 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Rich, Erica E. M. Moodie, David A. Stephens, Robert W. Platt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biostatistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaUNICEFThrasher Research Fund
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingResidualContext (archaeology)EstimationComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss model checking with residual diagnostic plots for g-estimation of optimal dynamic treatment regimes. The g-estimation method requires three different model specifications at each treatment interval under consideration: (1) the blip model; (2) the expected counterfactual model; and (3) the propensity model. Of these, the expected counterfactual model is especially difficult to specify correctly in practice and so far there has been little guidance as to how to check for model misspecification. Residual plots are a useful and standard tool for model diagnostics in the classical regression setting; we have adapted this approach for g-estimation. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach in a simulation study, and apply it to real data in the context of estimating the optimal time to stop breastfeeding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of BiostatisticsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207