MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921476564 · doi:10.1002/sim.8132

A test for the correct specification of marginal structural models

2019· article· en· W2921476564 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alioune Sall, Karine Aubé, Xavier Trudel, Chantal Brisson, Denis Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation du CHUM
KeywordsMarginal structural modelInverse probabilityComputer scienceEstimatorEconometricsOutcome (game theory)ConfoundingStatisticsCausal modelMathematicsBayesian probabilityPosterior probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal structural models (MSMs) allow estimating the causal effect of a time-varying exposure on an outcome in the presence of time-dependent confounding. The parameters of MSMs can be estimated utilizing an inverse probability of treatment weight estimator under certain assumptions. One of these assumptions is that the proposed causal model relating the outcome to exposure history is correctly specified. However, in practice, the true model is unknown. We propose a test that employs the observed data to attempt validating the assumption that the model is correctly specified. The performance of the proposed test is investigated with a simulation study. We illustrate our approach by estimating the effect of repeated exposure to psychosocial stressors at work on ambulatory blood pressure in a large cohort of white-collar workers in Québec City, Canada. Code examples in SAS and R are provided to facilitate the implementation of the test.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207