MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112669742 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwh090

A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary Data

2004· article· en· W2112669742 on OpenAlexaff
Guangyong Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson regressionStatisticsPoisson distributionMathematicsRegression analysisBinary dataRegressionVariance (accounting)Linear regressionBinary numberEconometricsMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relative risk is usually the parameter of interest in epidemiologic and medical studies. In this paper, the author proposes a modified Poisson regression approach (i.e., Poisson regression with a robust error variance) to estimate this effect measure directly. A simple 2-by-2 table is used to justify the validity of this approach. Results from a limited simulation study indicate that this approach is very reliable even with total sample sizes as small as 100. The method is illustrated with two data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9,468
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207