MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087403652 · doi:10.1136/bmj.c2289

Random measurement error and regression dilution bias

2010· article· en· W2087403652 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer A. Hutcheon, Arnaud Chioléro, James A. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandom errorObservational errorStatisticsAssociation (psychology)EconometricsRegressionComputer scienceRandom effects modelRandom forestPsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random measurement error is a pervasive problem in medical research, which can introduce bias to an estimate of the association between a risk factor and a disease or make a true association statistically non-significant. Hutcheon and colleagues explain when, why, and how random measurement error introduces bias and provides strategies for researchers to minimise the problem

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)0.326
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.728
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3260.728
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations761
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207