MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084416125 · doi:10.1177/0962280208096046

Efficient sampling approaches to address confounding in database studies

2008· review· en· W2084416125 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Hanley, Nandini Dendukuri

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingPharmacoepidemiologyMedical prescriptionComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)MedicineData miningStatisticsMathematicsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Administrative and other population-based databases are widely used in pharmacoepidemiology to study the unintended effects of medications. They allow investigators to study large case series, and they document prescription medication exposure without having to contact individuals or medical charts, or rely on human recall. However, such databases often lack information on potentially important confounding variables. This review describes some of the sampling approaches and accompanying data-analysis methods that can be used to assess, and deal efficiently with, such confounding.

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.332
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.332
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.915
GPT teacher head0.778
Teacher spread0.137 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207