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 OpenAlexafffund
Erica E. M. Moodie

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrical JournalSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207