MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003977935 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100539

An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing over-dispersed zero-inflated count data from stratified cluster randomized trials

2020· article· en· W3003977935 on OpenAlexafffund
Sayem Borhan, Courtney Kennedy, George Ioannidis, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου, Jonathan D. Adachi, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Health Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionCount dataOverdispersionGeeStatisticsPoisson distributionPoisson regressionGeneralized estimating equationMathematicsSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialMedicinePopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ) - originally designed to assess the feasibility of a knowledge translation intervention in long-term care home setting. METHOD: Forty long-term care (LTC) homes were stratified and then randomized into knowledge translation (KT) intervention (19 homes) and control (21 homes) groups. The homes/clusters were stratified by home size (<250/> = 250) and profit status (profit/non-profit). The outcome of this study was number of falls measured at 6-month post-intervention. The following methods were used to assess the effect of KT intervention on number of falls: i) standard Poisson and negative binomial regression; ii) mixed-effects method with Poisson and negative binomial distribution; iii) generalized estimating equation (GEE) with Poisson and negative binomial; iv) zero inflated Poisson and negative binomial - with the latter used as a primary approach. All these methods were compared with or without adjusting for stratification. RESULTS: A total of 5,478 older people from 40 LTC homes were included in this study. The mean (=1) of the number of falls was smaller than the variance (=6). Also 72% and 46% of the number of falls were zero in the control and intervention groups, respectively. The direction of the estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) was similar for all methods. The zero inflated negative binomial yielded the lowest IRRs and narrowest 95% confidence intervals when adjusted for stratification compared to GEE and mixed-effect methods. Further, the widths of the 95% confidence intervals were narrower when the methods adjusted for stratification compared to the same method not adjusted for stratification. CONCLUSION: The overall conclusion from the GEE, mixed-effect and zero inflated methods were similar. However, these methods differ in terms of effect estimate and widths of the confidence interval. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01398527. Registered: 19 July 2011.

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)0.499
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.730
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4990.730
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.015
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.868
GPT teacher head0.715
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207