MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569089902 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2019.1577975

Sample size calculations for hierarchical Poisson and zero-inflated Poisson regression models

2019· article· en· W2569089902 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson regressionZero-inflated modelPoisson distributionStatisticsMathematicsZero (linguistics)OverdispersionSample (material)Sample size determinationRegression analysisRegressionCount dataStatistical physicsEconometricsPhysicsPopulationMedicineThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biomedical research there is a growing interest in the use of hierarchical Poisson regression models. Although sample size calculations for testing parameters in a Poisson regression model with prespecified power and size have been previously done, very little attention has been paid to this problem for the hierarchical model. We propose to use Monte Carlo simulations to calculate the sample size necessary to perform the Wald tests when the number of clusters is fixed in advance, but the cluster size is variable. The effect of the number of clusters and the covariance structure of the fixed effects is also studied. The method and the simulation study are also extended to the case of the hierarchical zero-inflated Poisson regression model in order to obtain analogous results there. The method is also illustrated on an interesting real dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.287 · 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