MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919628666 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001170

Understanding Measures of Association

2019· article· en· W2919628666 on OpenAlexaff
Suneel Upadhye, Mohammad Alavinia, Dinesh Kumbhare

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDystonia Medical Research Foundation CanadaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioAssociation (psychology)MedicineOddsOutcome (game theory)Relative riskDiagnostic odds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalLogistic regressionPsychologyInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding measures of associations, how they are calculated, what they mean, and how to compare them is an important part of understanding clinical and health research. The relative risk and odds ratio are the two most common used measures of association in medical research. The appropriate use of these statistics to estimate the association between treatment or risk factor and outcome in research studies depends on the methodology and design of the study. The aim of this article was to cover basics of odds ratio and relative risk as the most important measures for the association between an exposure and an outcome. We use a clinical scenario as an example of their uses and demonstrate their calculation.

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.359
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.359
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.029
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207