MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897220320 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12339

Flexible piecewise linear model for investigating dose‐response relationship in meta‐analysis: Methodology, examples, and comparison

2019· article· en· W2897220320 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewise linear functionPiecewiseLinear modelSimple (philosophy)MathematicsSegmented regressionApplied mathematicsFunction (biology)Spline (mechanical)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsLinear regressionMathematical analysisPolynomial regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is widely employed in establishing the potential dose-response relationship between continuous exposures and disease outcomes. However, there is no valid DRMA method readily for discrete exposures, especially when the possible dose-response trend not likely to be linear. We proposed a piecewise linear DRMA model as a solution to this issue. METHODS: We illustrated the methodology of piecewise linear model in both one-stage DRMA approach and two-stage DRMA approach. The method by testing the equality of slopes of each piecewise was employed to judge if there is "piecewise effect" against a simple linear trend. We then used sleep (continuous exposure) and parity (discrete exposure) data as examples to illustrate how to apply the model in DRMA using the Stata code attached. We also empirically compared the slopes of piecewise linear model with simple linear as well as restricted cubic spline model. RESULTS: Both one-stage and two-stage piecewise linear DRMA model fitted well in our examples, and the results were similar. Obvious "piecewise effects" were detected in both the two samples by the method we used. In our example, the new model showed a better fitting effect and practical, reliable results compared to the simple linear model, while similar results for to restricted cubic spline model. CONCLUSION: Piecewise linear function is a valid and straightforward method for DRMA and can be used for discrete exposures, especially when the simple linear function is under fitted. It represents a superior model to linear model in DRMA and may be an alternative model to the nonlinear model.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelingmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.672
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.184 · 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