Test Result–Based Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Accuracy studies of Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are critical but limited by the large samples required due to low occurrence of most events. We tested a sampling design based on test results (verification-biased sampling [VBS]) that minimizes the number of subjects to be verified. METHODS: We considered 3 real PSIs, whose rates were calculated using 3 years of discharge data from a university hospital and a hypothetical screen of very rare events. Sample size estimates, based on the expected sensitivity and precision, were compared across 4 study designs: random and VBS, with and without constraints on the size of the population to be screened. RESULTS: Over sensitivities ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 and PSI prevalence levels ranging from 0.02 to 0.2, the optimal VBS strategy makes it possible to reduce sample size by up to 60% in comparison with simple random sampling. For PSI prevalence levels below 1%, the minimal sample size required was still over 5000. CONCLUSIONS: Verification-biased sampling permits substantial savings in the required sample size for PSI validation studies. However, sample sizes still need to be very large for many of the rarer PSIs.
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 | 0.090 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".