Confounder summary scores when comparing the effects of multiple drug exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little information is available comparing methods to adjust for confounding when considering multiple drug exposures. We compared three analytic strategies to control for confounding based on measured variables: conventional multivariable, exposure propensity score (EPS), and disease risk score (DRS). METHODS: Each method was applied to a dataset (2000-2006) recently used to examine the comparative effectiveness of four drugs. The relative effectiveness of risedronate, nasal calcitonin, and raloxifene in preventing non-vertebral fracture, were each compared to alendronate. EPSs were derived both by using multinomial logistic regression (single model EPS) and by three separate logistic regression models (separate model EPS). DRSs were derived and event rates compared using Cox proportional hazard models. DRSs derived among the entire cohort (full cohort DRS) was compared to DRSs derived only among the referent alendronate (unexposed cohort DRS). RESULTS: Less than 8% deviation from the base estimate (conventional multivariable) was observed applying single model EPS, separate model EPS or full cohort DRS. Applying the unexposed cohort DRS when background risk for fracture differed between comparison drug exposure cohorts resulted in -7 to + 13% deviation from our base estimate. CONCLUSIONS: With sufficient numbers of exposed and outcomes, either conventional multivariable, EPS or full cohort DRS may be used to adjust for confounding to compare the effects of multiple drug exposures. However, our data also suggest that unexposed cohort DRS may be problematic when background risks differ between referent and exposed groups. Further empirical and simulation studies will help to clarify the generalizability of our findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".