MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612495025 · doi:10.1177/0962280217708665

Model validation and selection for personalized medicine using dynamic-weighted ordinary least squares

2017· article· en· W2612495025 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael P. Wallace, Erica E. M. Moodie, David A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
KeywordsOrdinary least squaresRobustness (evolution)Computer sciencePersonalized medicineSelection (genetic algorithm)Generalized least squaresEconometricsData miningStatisticsMathematicsMachine learningBioinformaticsEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model assessment is a standard component of statistical analysis, but it has received relatively little attention within the dynamic treatment regime literature. In this paper, we focus on the dynamic-weighted ordinary least squares approach to optimal dynamic treatment regime estimation, introducing how its double-robustness property may be leveraged for model assessment, and how quasilikelihood may be used for model selection. These ideas are demonstrated through simulation studies, as well as through application to data from the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression study.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.648
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.062 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207