Investigating and Remediating Selection Bias in Geriatrics Research: The Selection Bias Toolkit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Selection bias is a well-known concern in research on older adults. We discuss two common forms of selection bias in aging research: (1) survivor bias and (2) bias due to loss to follow-up. Our objective was to review these two forms of selection bias in geriatrics research. In clinical aging research, selection bias is a particular concern because all participants must have survived to old age, and be healthy enough, to take part in a research study in geriatrics. DESIGN: We demonstrate the key issues related to selection bias using three case studies focused on obesity, a common clinical risk factor in older adults. We also created a Selection Bias Toolkit that includes strategies to prevent selection bias when designing a research study in older adults and analytic techniques that can be used to examine, and correct for, the influence of selection bias in geriatrics research. RESULTS: Survivor bias and bias due to loss to follow-up can distort study results in geriatric populations. Key steps to avoid selection bias at the study design stage include creating causal diagrams, minimizing barriers to participation, and measuring variables that predict loss to follow-up. The Selection Bias Toolkit details several analytic strategies available to geriatrics researchers to examine and correct for selection bias (eg, regression modeling and sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSION: The toolkit is designed to provide a broad overview of methods available to examine and correct for selection bias. It is specifically intended for use in the context of aging research. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1970-1976, 2019.
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 | 0.526 | 0.692 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".