MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3052338136 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001055

Propensity Score Matching

2020· article· en· W3052338136 on OpenAlexaff
Jetan H. Badhiwala, Brij Karmur, Jefferson R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine Publication · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropensity score matchingObservational studyOutcome (game theory)Matching (statistics)ConfoundingMedicineComputer scienceEconometricsInternal medicineMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In using observational, nonrandomized data, there is often interest in studying the effect of a particular treatment on a specific outcome. However, the imbalance of potential confounding variables between the treatment groups can distort the relationship between treatment and outcome. Propensity score matching is one, increasingly utilized, method to help account for such imbalances, allowing for a more accurate estimation of the influence of treatment on outcome. In this paper, we provide the clinician with an overview of propensity score matching techniques and provide a practical example of how this has been used in clinical research relevant to spine surgery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.503
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.039 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine PublicationSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207