MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604188292 · doi:10.1002/sim.7289

Correcting covariate‐dependent measurement error with non‐zero mean

2017· article· en· W2604188292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nabila Parveen, Erica E. M. Moodie, Bluma Brenner

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsBiotechnology Research InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateStatisticsObservational errorExtrapolationRegressionImputation (statistics)EconometricsCalibrationStandard errorMathematicsComputer scienceMissing data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many settings in which the distribution of error in a mismeasured covariate varies with the value of another covariate. Take, for example, the case of HIV phylogenetic cluster size, large values of which are an indication of rapid HIV transmission. Researchers wish to find behavioral correlates of HIV phylogenetic cluster size; however, the distribution of its measurement error depends on the correctly measured variable, HIV status, and does not have a mean of zero. Further, it is not feasible to obtain validation data or repeated measurements. We propose an extension of simulation-extrapolation, an estimation technique for bias reduction in the presence of measurement error that does not require validation data and can accommodate errors whose distribution depends on other, error-free covariates. The proposed extension performs well in simulation, typically exhibiting less bias and variability than either regression calibration or multiple imputation for measurement error. We apply the proposed method to data from the province of Quebec in Canada to examine the association between HIV phylogenetic cluster size and the number of reported sex partners. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207