An Empirical Method of Detecting Time-Dependent Confounding: An Observational Study of Next Day Delirium in a Medical ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal research on older persons in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) is often complicated by the time-dependent confounding of concurrently administered interventions such as medications and intubation. Such temporal confounding can bias the respective longitudinal associations between concurrently administered treatments and a longitudinal outcome such as delirium. Although marginal structural models address time-dependent confounding, their application is non-trivial and preferably justified by empirical evidence. Using data from a longitudinal study of older persons in the MICU, we constructed a plausibility score from 0 - 10 where higher values indicate higher plausibility of time-dependent confounding of the association between a time-varying explanatory variable and an outcome. Based on longitudinal plots, measures of correlation, and longitudinal regression, the plausibility scores were compared to the differences in estimates obtained with non-weighted and marginal structural models of next day delirium. The plausibility scores of the three possible pairings of daily doses of fentanyl, haloperidol, and intubation indicated the following: low plausibility for haloperidol and intubation, moderate plausibility for fentanyl and haloperidol, and high plausibility for fentanyl and intubation. Comparing multivariable models of next day delirium with and without adjustment for time-dependent confounding, only intubation's association changed substantively. In our observational study of older persons in the MICU, the plausibility scores were generally reflective of the observed differences between coefficients estimated from non-weighted and marginal structural models.
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 | 0.095 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".