Effects of categorization method, regression type, and variable distribution on the inflation of Type‐I error rate when categorizing a confounding variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of signal associated with categorizing a continuous variable is well known, and previous studies have demonstrated that this can lead to an inflation of Type-I error when the categorized variable is a confounder in a regression analysis estimating the effect of an exposure on an outcome. However, it is not known how the Type-I error may vary under different circumstances, including logistic versus linear regression, different distributions of the confounder, and different categorization methods. Here, we analytically quantified the effect of categorization and then performed a series of 9600 Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the Type-I error inflation associated with categorization of a confounder under different regression scenarios. We show that Type-I error is unacceptably high (>10% in most scenarios and often 100%). The only exception was when the variable categorized was a continuous mixture proxy for a genuinely dichotomous latent variable, where both the continuous proxy and the categorized variable are error-ridden proxies for the dichotomous latent variable. As expected, error inflation was also higher with larger sample size, fewer categories, and stronger associations between the confounder and the exposure or outcome. We provide online tools that can help researchers estimate the potential error inflation and understand how serious a problem this is.
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 | 0.336 | 0.575 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".