Interval estimation of risk difference for data sampled from clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk difference (RD) is an important measure in epidemiological studies where the probability of developing a disease for individuals in an exposed group, for example, is compared with that in a control group. There are varying cluster sizes in each group and the binary responses within each cluster cannot be assumed independent. Under the cluster sampling scenario, Lui (Statistical Estimation of Epidemiological Risk. Wiley: CA, 2004; 7-27) discusses four methods for the construction of a confidence interval for the RD. In this paper we introduce two very simple methods. One method is based on an estimator of the variance of a ratio estimator (Sampling Techniques (3rd edn). Wiley: New York, 1977; 30-67) and the other method is based on a sandwich estimator of the variance of the regression estimator using the generalized estimating equations approach of Zeger and Liang (Biometrics 1986; 42:121-130). These two methods are then compared, by simulation, in terms of maintaining nominal coverage probability and average coverage length, with the four methods discussed by Lui (Statistical Estimation of Epidemiological Risk. Wiley: CA, 2004; 7-27). Simulations show at least as good properties of these two methods as those of the others. The method based on an estimate of the variance of a ratio estimator performs best overall. It involves a very simple variance expression and can be implemented with a very few computer codes. Therefore, it can be considered as an easily implementable alternative.
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 | 0.049 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".