Detecting and correcting for publication bias in meta-analysis – A truncated normal distribution approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publication bias can significantly limit the validity of meta-analysis when trying to draw conclusion about a research question from independent studies. Most research on detection and correction for publication bias in meta-analysis focus mainly on funnel plot-based methodologies or selection models. In this paper, we formulate publication bias as a truncated distribution problem, and propose new parametric solutions. We develop methodologies of estimating the underlying overall effect size and the severity of publication bias. We distinguish the two major situations, in which publication bias may be induced by: (1) small effect size or (2) large p-value. We consider both fixed and random effects models, and derive estimators for the overall mean and the truncation proportion. These estimators will be obtained using maximum likelihood estimation and method of moments under fixed- and random-effects models, respectively. We carried out extensive simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our methodology, and to compare with the non-parametric Trim and Fill method based on funnel plot. We find that our methods based on truncated normal distribution perform consistently well, both in detecting and correcting publication bias under various situations.
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 | 0.253 | 0.515 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".