Identifiability and Estimation Under the Test-negative Design With Population Controls With the Goal of Identifying Risk and Preventive Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, quick public health investigations of the relationships between behaviors and infection risk are essential. Recently the test-negative design (TND) was proposed to recruit and survey participants who are symptomatic and being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection with the goal of evaluating associations between the survey responses (including behaviors and environment) and testing positive on the test. It was also proposed to recruit additional controls who are part of the general population as a baseline comparison group to evaluate risk factors specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, we consider an alternative design where we recruit among all individuals, symptomatic and asymptomatic, being tested for the virus in addition to population controls. We define a regression parameter related to a prospective risk factor analysis and investigate its identifiability under the two study designs. We review the difference between the prospective risk factor parameter and the parameter targeted in the typical TND where only symptomatic and tested people are recruited. Using missing data directed acyclic graphs, we provide conditions and required data collection under which identifiability of the prospective risk factor parameter is possible and compare the benefits and limitations of the alternative study designs and target parameters. We propose a novel inverse probability weighting estimator and demonstrate the performance of this estimator through simulation study.
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 | 0.116 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".