When exposure is subject to nondifferential misclassification, are validation data helpful in testing for an exposure–disease association?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consider assessing the evidence for an exposure variable and a disease variable being associated, when the true exposure variable is more costly to obtain than an error‐prone but nondifferential surrogate exposure variable. From a study design perspective, there are choices regarding the best use of limited resources. Should one acquire the true exposure status for fewer subjects or the surrogate exposure status for more subjects? The issue of validation is also central, i.e., should we simultaneously measure the true and surrogate exposure variables on a subset of study subjects? Using large‐sample theory, we provide a framework for quantifying the power of testing for an exposure–disease association as a function of study cost. This enables us to present comparisons of different study designs under different suppositions about both the relative cost and the performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the surrogate variable. We present simulations to show the applicability of our theoretical framework, and we provide a case‐study comparing results from an actual study to what could have been seen had true exposure status been ascertained for a different proportion of study subjects. We also describe an extension of our ideas to a more complex situation involving covariates. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 222–237; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.268 | 0.628 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".