Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: Comparing Apples With Apples
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effect estimates from randomized trials and observational studies might not be directly comparable because of differences in study design, other than randomization, and in data analysis. We propose a 3-step procedure to facilitate meaningful comparisons of effect estimates from randomized trials and observational studies: 1) harmonization of the study protocols (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, outcome, start and end of follow-up, causal contrast) so that the studies target the same causal effect, 2) harmonization of the data analysis to estimate the causal effect, and 3) sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact of discrepancies that could not be accounted for in the harmonization process. To illustrate our approach, we compared estimates of the effect of immediate with deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy in individuals positive for the human immunodeficiency virus from the Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Therapy (START) randomized trial and the observational HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it