Two-Stage Case-Control Studies: Precision of Parameter Estimates and Considerations in Selecting Sample Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-stage case-control design, in which exposure and outcome are determined for a large sample but covariates are measured on only a subsample, may be much less expensive than a one-stage design of comparable power. However, the methods available to plan the sizes of the stage 1 and stage 2 samples, or to project the precision/power provided by a given configuration, are limited to the case of a binary exposure and a single binary confounder. The authors propose a rearrangement of the components in the variance of the estimator of the log-odds ratio. This formulation makes it possible to plan sample sizes/precision by including variance inflation factors to deal with several confounding factors. A practical variance bound is derived for two-stage case-control studies, where confounding variables are binary, while an empirical investigation is used to anticipate the additional sample size requirements when these variables are quantitative. Two methods are suggested for sample size planning based on a quantitative, rather than binary, exposure.
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 | 0.297 | 0.580 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".