Comparison of time series and case-crossover analyses of air pollution and hospital admission data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time series analysis is the most commonly used technique for assessing the association between counts of health events over time and exposure to ambient air pollution. Recently, case-crossover analysis has been proposed as an alternative analytical approach. While each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages, there remains considerable uncertainty as to which statistical methodology is preferable for evaluating data of this type. METHODS: The objective of this paper is to evaluate the performance of different variations of these two procedures using computer simulation. Hospital admission data were generated under realistic models with known parameters permitting estimates based on time series and case-crossover analyses to be compared with these known values. RESULTS: While accurate estimates can be achieved with both methods, both methods require some decisions to be made by the researcher during the course of the analysis. With time series analysis, it is necessary to choose the time span in the LOESS smoothing process, or degrees of freedom when using natural cubic splines. For case-crossover studies using either uni- or bi-directional control selection strategies, the choice of time intervals needs to be made. CONCLUSIONS: We prefer the times series approach because the best estimates of risk that can be obtained with time series analysis are more precise than the best estimates based on case-crossover analysis.
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 | 0.094 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".