MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146392455 · doi:10.1111/biom.12222

Case-Base Methods for Studying Vaccination Safety

2014· article· en· W2146392455 on OpenAlexafffund
Olli Saarela, James A. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTekniikan Edistämissäätiö
KeywordsPoolingEstimatorStatisticsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceEconometricsNonparametric statisticsPopulationMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pooling of controls under nested-case control settings can produce substantial efficiency gains compared to standard time-matched analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method or conditional logistic regression. In the context of possible adverse effects of early childhood vaccinations, we propose pooling of the information from the controls to estimate the population exposure prevalence as a parametric or nonparametric function of time, and possibly other factors. This function in turn may be used as a plug-in estimate to control for confounding in the subsequent estimation of rate ratios. We derive standard errors for the resulting two-step estimators, demonstrate through simulations the efficiency gains compared to standard matched analysis, and propose a novel graphical presentation of the vaccination and adverse event time data. We formulate the methods in the general framework of case-base sampling, which subsumes the different case-control and case-only methods.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
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 score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207