MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419374772 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-530-5_2

Observational Study Design

2007· review· en· W2419374772 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond G. Hoffmann, Hyun J. Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyOutcome (game theory)Incidence (geometry)OddsSimilarity (geometry)Cohort studyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsLogistic regressionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much can be learned about a process by observing changes over time or by comparing two different processes under different conditions. This chapter introduces the major types of observational study designs: the longitudinal or cohort study, the comparative or case-control study, and some of their variants. It also includes examples of the key measures of relationship between factor and outcome in observational studies, the relative risk and the odds ratio. The similarity of the two measures for low incidence outcomes is illustrated, as is the use of attributable risk to assess how much of a binary outcome is due to a single factor.

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)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.010

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207