Heterogeneity's ruses: the neglected role of between-individual variability in longitudinal studies of COPD exacerbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the causal and temporal association between past and future exacerbations in COPD is an active area of research. Standard survival analysis techniques often used in such studies typically produce results that pertain to the overall population, whereas the greatest interest is in the study of associations within individuals. A factor that can lead to profound discrepancies between population-level and individual-level survival patterns is the between-individual heterogeneity in the rate of exacerbations. We briefly review two studies that, while reporting valid results for the overall population, drew conclusions at the individual level that could not be supported by the observations. We caution on the distinction between population and individual-level associations in survival analysis, and recommend accounting for heterogeneity in future studies.
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 | 0.063 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".