Population attributable fractions for continuously distributed exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When estimating population attributable fractions (PAF), it is common to partition a naturally continuous exposure into a categorical risk factor. While prior risk factor categorization can help estimation and interpretation, it can result in underestimation of the disease burden attributable to the exposure as well as biased comparisons across different exposures and risk factors. Here, we propose sensible PAF estimands for continuous exposures under a potential outcomes framework. In contrast to previous approaches, we incorporate estimation of the minimum risk exposure value (MREV) into our procedures. While for exposures such as tobacco usage, a sensible value of the MREV is known, often it is unknown and needs to be estimated. Second, in the setting that the MREV value is an extreme-value of the exposure lying in the distributional tail, we argue that the natural estimator of PAF may be both statistically biased and highly volatile; instead, we consider a family of modified PAFs which include the natural estimate of PAF as a limit. A graphical comparison of this set of modified PAF for differing risk factors may be a better way to rank risk factors as intervention targets, compared to the standard PAF calculation. Finally, we analyse the bias that may ensue from prior risk factor categorization, examining whether categorization is ever a good idea, and suggest interpretations of categorized-estimands within a causal inference setting.
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 | 0.020 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".