MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588103555 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfw341

Marginal structural models in clinical research: when and how to use them?

2017· article· en· W2588103555 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Williamson, Pietro Ravani

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarginal structural modelCovariateConfoundingMedicineStatisticsEconometricsOutcome (game theory)PopulationMathematicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal structural models are a multi-step estimation procedure designed to control for the effect of confounding variables that change over time, and are affected by previous treatment. When a time-varying confounder is affected by prior treatment standard methods for confounding control are inappropriate, because over time the covariate plays both the role of confounder and mediator of the effect of treatment on outcome. Marginal structural models first calculate a weight to assign to each observation. These weights reflect the extent to which observations with certain characteristics (covariate values) are under-represented or over-represented in the sample with the respect to a target population in which these characteristics are balanced across treatment groups. Then, marginal structural models estimate the outcome of interest taking into account these weights. Marginal structural models are a powerful method for confounding control in longitudinal study designs that collect time-varying information on exposure, outcome and other covariates.

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.604
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations119
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207