MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146675947 · doi:10.1198/jasa.2009.0011

Estimating Response-Maximized Decision Rules With Applications to Breastfeeding

2009· article· en· W2146675947 on OpenAlexaff
Erica E. M. Moodie, Robert W. Platt, Michael S. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingEstimationBreastfeeding promotionProbitProbit modelMedicineDecision ruleSet (abstract data type)Observational studyDuration (music)Term (time)Randomized controlled trialEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsComputer sciencePediatricsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To estimate the sequence of actions that optimizes response in a longitudinal setting, it is important to study the actions as part of a set of decision rules rather than in a series of single-action comparisons. We take as our motivating example the estimation of the set of decision rules for the duration of breastfeeding with a view to maximizing infant growth. Breastfeeding has many well-recognized beneficial effects on health and development. However observational evidence has suggested that breastfeeding is associated with reduced infant growth, although the long-term consequences for stature and adiposity remain controversial. The Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT) recruited 17,046 women in which hospitals and their affiliated polyclinics in Belarus were randomized to a breastfeeding promotion intervention or to standard care. In this article, we propose Structural Mean Models and estimate their parameters using G-estimation to obtain unbiased estimates of the effect of continued breastfeeding on infant growth (weight or length) at one year of age. We also implement a modified version of the G-estimation algorithm that is asymptotically unbiased; this is the first real-data application of the algorithm. Finally, we compare the decision rules implied by the G-estimates with the decision implied by a myopic optimization estimation approach, that is, we compare with decision rules that maximize response in the short-term. The breastfeeding regimes selected by each of the three models are optimal in the sense that specific criteria were optimized; the criteria considered here (maximizing weight or length) were chosen for simplicity, but may not lead to better overall health. We demonstrate in the context of a breastfeeding promotion intervention trial that optimal myopic decision strategies do not coincide with strategies that optimize a longer-term response. Please see the online supplements for a correction to this article.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations53
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207