Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies with Unmeasured Confounders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meta-analysis of observational studies is an exciting new area of innovation in statistical science. Unlike randomized controlled trials, which are the gold standard for proving causation, observational studies are prone to biases including confounding. In this article, we describe a novel Bayesian procedure to control for a confounder that is missing across the sequence of studies in a meta-analysis. We motivate the discussion with the example of a meta-analysis of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies examining the relationship between oral contraceptives and endometriosis. An important unmeasured confounder is dysmennoreah, which is an indication for oral contraceptive use. To adjust for unmeasured confounding, we combine random effects models with probabilistic sensitivity analysis techniques. Information about the unmeasured confounder is incorporated into the analysis via prior distributions, and we use MCMC to sample from posterior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".