A Pointwise Approach to Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Aggregated Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis a common functional relationship is applied to each study and an overall curve is obtained by combining study-specific dose-response coefficients. Possible limitations are: 1) a common dose-response model may have a poor fit in some of the studies; 2) combining dose-response coefficients discard information about study-specific exposure range. A pointwise approach for meta-analysis may overcome those limitations by combining predicted relative risks for a fine grid of exposure values based on potentially different dose-response models.We described how to flexibly model the dose-response association in a single study using fractional polynomials and spline, and how to present the combined results from study-specific analyses.The strategy is illustrated using aggregated data derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, with results compared to the corresponding analysis based on individual data.Another example on milk consumption and all-cause mortality is used to show the advantages of the pointwise approach regarding flexibility in the dose-response analyses, limitations of extrapolations, and informativeness in presenting pooled results.Application of the proposed strategy may improve dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies in case of particularly heterogeneous exposure distributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.439 | 0.554 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 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; both teacher heads 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".