Simplified Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Mismeasured and Unobserved Confounders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine situations where interest lies in the conditional association between outcome and exposure variables, given potential confounding variables. Concern arises that some potential confounders may not be measured accurately, whereas others may not be measured at all. Some form of sensitivity analysis might be employed, to assess how this limitation in available data impacts inference. A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis is straightforward in concept: a prior distribution is formed to encapsulate plausible relationships between unobserved and observed variables, and posterior inference about the conditional exposure-disease relationship then follows. In practice, though, it can be challenging to form such a prior distribution in both a realistic and simple manner. Moreover, it can be difficult to develop an attendant Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that will work effectively on a posterior distribution arising from a highly nonidentified model. In this article, a simple prior distribution for acknowledging both poorly measured and unmeasured confounding variables is developed. It requires that only a small number of hyperparameters be set by the user. Moreover, a particular computational approach for posterior inference is developed, because application of MCMC in a standard manner is seen to be ineffective in this problem.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it