ESPRESSO: taking into account assessment errors on outcome and exposures in power analysis for association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Very large studies are required to provide sufficiently big sample sizes for adequately powered association analyses. This can be an expensive undertaking and it is important that an accurate sample size is identified. For more realistic sample size calculation and power analysis, the impact of unmeasured aetiological determinants and the quality of measurement of both outcome and explanatory variables should be taken into account. Conventional methods to analyse power use closed-form solutions that are not flexible enough to cater for all of these elements easily. They often result in a potentially substantial overestimation of the actual power. RESULTS: In this article, we describe the Estimating Sample-size and Power in R by Exploring Simulated Study Outcomes tool that allows assessment errors in power calculation under various biomedical scenarios to be incorporated. We also report a real world analysis where we used this tool to answer an important strategic question for an existing cohort. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The software is available for online calculation and downloads at http://espresso-research.org. The code is freely available at https://github.com/ESPRESSO-research. CONTACT: louqman@gmail.com SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".