MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2282770545 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149940

Power Analysis for Population-Based Longitudinal Studies Investigating Gene-Environment Interactions in Chronic Diseases: A Simulation Study

2016· article· en· W2282770545 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jinhui Ma, Lehana Thabane, Joseph Beyene, Parminder Raina

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStatistical powerSample size determinationPopulationLongitudinal studyDemographyClinical study designHazard ratioStatisticsMedicineHazardDiseaseEnvironmental healthBiologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalMathematicsClinical trialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional methods for sample size calculation for population-based longitudinal studies tend to overestimate the statistical power by overlooking important determinants of the required sample size, such as the measurement errors and unmeasured etiological determinants, etc. In contrast, a simulation-based sample size calculation, if designed properly, allows these determinants to be taken into account and offers flexibility in accommodating complex study design features. The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) is a Canada-wide, 20-year follow-up study of 30,000 people between the ages of 45 and 85 years, with in-depth information collected every 3 years. A simulation study, based on an illness-death model, was conducted to: (1) investigate the statistical power profile of the CLSA to detect the effect of environmental and genetic risk factors, and their interaction on age-related chronic diseases; and (2) explore the design alternatives and implementation strategies for increasing the statistical power of population-based longitudinal studies in general. The results showed that the statistical power to identify the effect of environmental and genetic risk exposures, and their interaction on a disease was boosted when: (1) the prevalence of the risk exposures increased; (2) the disease of interest is relatively common in the population; and (3) risk exposures were measured accurately. In addition, the frequency of data collection every three years in the CLSA led to a slightly lower statistical power compared to the design assuming that participants underwent health monitoring continuously. The CLSA had sufficient power to detect a small (1<hazard ratio (HR)≤1.5) or moderate effect (1.5< HR≤2.0) of the environmental risk exposure, as long as the risk exposure and the disease of interest were not rare. It had enough power to detect a moderate or large (2.0

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.152
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.377
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1520.377
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→