A Cautionary Note About Estimating Effects of Secondary Exposures in Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohort studies are often enriched for a primary exposure of interest to improve cost-effectiveness, which presents analytical challenges not commonly discussed in epidemiology. In this paper, we use causal diagrams to represent exposure-enriched cohort studies, illustrate a scenario wherein the risk ratio for the effect of a secondary exposure on an outcome is biased, and propose an analytical method for correcting for such bias. In our motivating example, maternal smoking (Z) is a cause of fetal growth restriction (X), which subsequently affects preterm birth (Y) (i.e., Z → X → Y); strong positive associations exist between both Z, X and X, Y; and enrichment for X increases its prevalence from 10% to 50%. In the X-enriched cohort, unadjusted and X-adjusted analyses lead to bias in the risk ratio for the total effect of Z on Y. After application of inverse probability weights, the bias is corrected, with a small loss of efficiency in comparison with a same-sized study without X-enrichment. With increasing interest in conducting secondary analyses to reduce research costs, caution should be employed when analyzing studies that have already been enriched, intentionally or unintentionally, for a primary exposure of interest. Causal diagrams can help identify scenarios in which secondary analyses may be biased. Inverse probability weights can be used to remove the bias.
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 | 0.383 | 0.673 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| 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; 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".