MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907623703 · doi:10.1017/s026646231800301x

PD26 Principal Component Approximation: Canadian Health Measures Survey

2018· article· en· W2907623703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yi‐Sheng Chao, Chao-Jung Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpirometryPrincipal component analysisStatisticsMathematicsDimension (graph theory)VariablesVital capacityData setRegression analysisEconometricsLung functionMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Principal component analysis (PCA) is used for dimension reduction and data summary. However, principal components (PCs) cannot be easily interpreted. To interpret PCs, this study compares two methods to approximate PCs. One uses the PCA loadings to understand how input variables are projected to PCs. The other uses forward-stepwise regression to determine the proportions of PC variances explained by input variables. Methods: Two data sets derived from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) were used to test the concept of PC approximation: a spirometry subset with the measures from the first trial of spirometry; and, full data set that contained representative variables. Variables were centered and scaled. PCA were conducted with 282 and twenty-three variables respectively. PCs were approximated with two methods. Results: The first PC (PC1) could explain 12.1 percent and 50.3 percent of total variances in respective data sets. The leading variables explained 89.6 percent and 79.0 percent of the variances of PC1 in respective data sets. It required one and two variables to explain more than 80 percent of the variances of PC1, respectively. Measures related to physical development were the leading variables to approximate PC1 and lung function variables were leading to approximate PC2 in the full data set. The leading variable to approximate PC1 of the spirometry subset were forced expiratory volume (FEV) 0.5/forced vital capacity (FVC) (percent) and FEV1/FVC (percent). Conclusions: Approximating PCs with input variables were highly feasible and helpful for the interpretation of PCs, especially for the first PCs. This method is also useful to identify major or unique sources of variances in data sets. The variables related to physical development are the variables related to the most variations in the full data set. The leading variable in the spirometry subset, FEV0.5/FVC (percent), is not well studied for its application in clinical use.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207