MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403578550

Selection of subjects for hospital-based epidemiologic studies based on outward manifestations of disease.

2001· article· en· W2403578550 on OpenAlexaff
Sérgio de Andrade Nishioka, Theresa W. Gyorkos, Lawrence Joseph, Jean‐Paul Collet

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection biasSelection (genetic algorithm)MedicineDiseaseCohortControl (management)Matching (statistics)Case-control studyCohort studyEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection of controls with the same outward manifestations of disease as the case group has been proposed as a means of avoiding selection bias in hospital-based case-control studies. The same strategy, however, can lead to selection bias in registry-based case-control studies that use control diseases with similar manifestations whose diagnoses might have been associated with the exposure. Matching exposed and unexposed subjects by outward manifestation of disease can be used in cohort and cross-sectional studies aiming at decreasing selection bias. This strategy in these study designs may lead to overmatching, but this will not bias the relative-risk estimates. Efficiency considerations in applying this strategy require further investigation.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207