The Quasi-cohort Approach in Pharmacoepidemiology
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
Observational studies of drug effects conducted using health care mega-databases often involve large cohorts with multiple time-varying exposures and covariates. These present formidable technical challenges in data analysis, necessitating sampling approaches such as nested case-control designs. The nested case-control approach is, however, baffling to medical journal readers, particularly the comparisons involving "cases" versus "controls" and the convoluted way in which forward-looking relations from exposure to outcome are extracted from backward-looking data. I propose a "quasi-cohort" approach involving alternative ways of data presentation and analysis that are more in line with the underlying cohort design, including the computation of quasi-rates, rate ratios, and quasi-rate differences. I illustrate the quasi-cohort approach using data from a study of pneumonia risk associated with inhaled corticosteroid use in a cohort of 163,514 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including 20,344 who had the outcome event of pneumonia hospitalization during more than 304 million person-days of follow-up.
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 | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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