Probability Sampling in Matched Case-Control Study in Drug Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although random sampling is generally considered to be the gold standard for population-based research, the majority of drug abuse research is based on non-random sampling despite the well-known limitations of this kind of sampling. We compared the statistical properties of two surveys of drug abuse in the same community: one using snowball sampling of drug users who then identified “friend controls” and the other using a random sample of non-drug users (controls) who then identified “friend cases”. Models to predict drug abuse based on risk factors were developed for each data set using conditional logistic regression. Bootstrap analysis of the random-sample data set showed less variation, and did not change the significance of the predictors when compared to the non-bootstrap analysis. Comparison of ROC curves using the model derived from the random-sample data set was similar when fitted to either data set (0.93 for random-sample data vs. 0.91 for snowball-sample data (p=0.35)); however, when the model derived from the snowball-sample data set was fitted to each of the data sets, the areas under the curve were significantly different (0.98 vs. 0.83, p<.001). The proposed method of random sampling of controls appears to be superior from a statistical perspective to snowball sampling and may represent a viable alternative to snowball sampling.
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 | 0.124 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".