MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082644600 · doi:10.1002/bimj.200800182

Risk Factor Adjustment in Marginal Structural Model Estimation of Optimal Treatment Regimes

2009· article· en· W2082644600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMarginal structural modelConfoundingWeightingEconometricsContext (archaeology)Inverse probability weightingMarginal modelStatisticsPropensity score matchingModel selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Marginal distributionOutcome (game theory)Computer scienceMathematicsRegression analysisMedicineMachine learningRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal structural models (MSMs) are an increasingly popular tool, particularly in epidemiological applications, to handle the problem of time-varying confounding by intermediate variables when studying the effect of sequences of exposures. Considerable attention has been devoted to the optimal choice of treatment model for propensity score-based methods and, more recently, to variable selection in the treatment model for inverse weighting in MSMs. However, little attention has been paid to the modeling of the outcome of interest, particularly with respect to the best use of purely predictive, non-confounding variables in MSMs. Four modeling approaches are investigated in the context of both static treatment sequences and optimal dynamic treatment rules with the goal of estimating a marginal effect with the least error, both in terms of bias and variability.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.254 · 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