Strategies for evaluating the assumptions of the regression discontinuity design: a case study using a human papillomavirus vaccination programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The regression discontinuity design (RDD) is a quasi-experimental approach used to avoid confounding bias in the assessment of new policies and interventions. It is applied specifically in situations where individuals are assigned to a policy/intervention based on whether they are above or below a pre-specified cut-off on a continuously measured variable, such as birth date, income or weight. The strength of the design is that, provided individuals do not manipulate the value of this variable, assignment to the policy/intervention is considered as good as random for individuals close to the cut-off. Despite its popularity in fields like economics, the RDD remains relatively unknown in epidemiology where its application could be tremendously useful. Methods: In this paper, we provide a practical introduction to the RDD for health researchers, describe four empirically testable assumptions of the design and offer strategies that can be used to assess whether these assumptions are met in a given study. For illustrative purposes, we implement these strategies to assess whether the RDD is appropriate for a study of the impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical dysplasia. Results: We found that, whereas the assumptions of the RDD were generally satisfied in our study context, birth timing had the potential to confound our effect estimate in an unexpected way and therefore needed to be taken into account in the analysis. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of assessing the validity of the assumptions of this design, testing them when possible and making adjustments as necessary to support valid causal inference.
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 | 0.426 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".