MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148009828 · doi:10.1002/bimj.200900277

Simulation‐based power calculations for large cohort studies

2010· article· en· W2148009828 on OpenAlex
Patrick Brown, Hedy Jiang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsCovariateStatisticsProportional hazards modelCohortStatistical powerEconometricsCorrelationCohort studyDemographyMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of factors can affect the statistical power and bias of analyses of data from large cohort studies, including misclassification, correlated data, follow-up time, prevalence of the risk factor of interest, and prevalence of the outcome. This paper presents a method for simulating cohorts where individual's risk is correlated within communities, recruitment is staggered over time, and outcomes are observed after different follow-up periods. Covariates and outcomes are misclassified, and Cox proportional hazards models are fit with a community-level frailty term. The effect on study power of varying effect sizes, prevalences, correlation, and misclassification are explored, as well as varying the proportion of controls in nested case-control 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.190 · 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