MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inconsistency Between Univariate and Multiple Logistic Regressions.

2017· article· en· W2957457613 on OpenAlexaff
Hongyue Wang, Jing Peng, Bokai Wang, Xiang Lu, Julia Z Zheng, Kejia Wang, Xin Tu, Changyong Feng

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionUnivariateObservational studyCovariateStatisticsLogistic model treeRegression analysisCross-sectional regressionBinomial regressionRegression diagnosticFactor regression modelUnivariate analysisEconometricsMedicineMathematicsBayesian multivariate linear regressionMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysisProper linear model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logistic regression is a popular statistical method in studying the effects of covariates on binary outcomes. It has been widely used in both clinical trials and observational studies. However, the results from the univariate regression and from the multiple logistic regression tend to be conflicting. A covariate may show very strong effect on the outcome in the multiple regression but not in the univariate regression, and vice versa. These facts have not been well appreciated in biomedical research. Misuse of logistic regression is very prevalent in medical publications. In this paper, we study the inconsistency between the univariate and multiple logistic regressions and give advice in the model section in multiple logistic regression analysis.

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)0.290
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.693
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2900.693
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations84
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207