MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099320460 · doi:10.1002/sim.6523

Adaptive sampling in two‐phase designs: a biomarker study for progression in arthritis

2015· article· en· W2099320460 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEstimatorComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)ExploitAdaptive samplingOptimal designSample size determinationPhase (matter)BiomarkerResource allocationStatisticsData miningMachine learningMathematicsMonte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response-dependent two-phase designs are used increasingly often in epidemiological studies to ensure sampling strategies offer good statistical efficiency while working within resource constraints. Optimal response-dependent two-phase designs are difficult to implement, however, as they require specification of unknown parameters. We propose adaptive two-phase designs that exploit information from an internal pilot study to approximate the optimal sampling scheme for an analysis based on mean score estimating equations. The frequency properties of estimators arising from this design are assessed through simulation, and they are shown to be similar to those from optimal designs. The design procedure is then illustrated through application to a motivating biomarker study in an ongoing rheumatology research program.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.533
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.089 · 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