Challenges in interpreting results from ‘multiple regression’ when there is interaction between covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Properly interpreting research results is the foundation of evidence-based medicine. Most observational studies use multiple regression and report adjusted effects. In randomised trials, adjusted effects are often provided when there are chance baseline imbalances. The estimates for the exposure of interest (eg, treatment) from these adjusted analyses are usually interpreted as population average causal effects (PACEs); for example, what would be the difference in the mean outcome if everyone in the population was treated versus untreated? In this paper, we show this interpretation is incorrect when there is an interaction between treatment and other variables with respect to the outcome. We provide the appropriate methods to calculate the PACE from regression analyses and also introduce alternative methods that have gained popularity over the last 20 years. Finally, we explain why researchers should be cautious when excluding interaction terms based on p values.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.491 | 0.841 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".