Consider This Before Using the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Pandemic as an Instrumental Variable in an Epidemiologic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologists sometimes use external sources of variation to explore highly confounded exposure-outcome relationships or exposures that cannot be randomized. These exogenous sources of variation, or natural experiments, are sometimes proposed as instrumental variables to examine the effects of given exposures on given outcomes. Previous epidemiologic studies have applied this technique using famines, earthquakes, weather events, and previous pandemics as exogenous sources of variation for other exposures; interest in applying this technique using the current severe acute respiratory system coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is already documented. Yet large-scale events like these likely have broad and complicated impacts on human health, which almost certainly violates the exclusion restriction assumption of instrumental variable analyses. We review the assumptions of instrumental variable analyses, highlight previous applications of this method with respect to natural experiments with broad impacts or "shocks," and discuss how these relate to our current observations of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While we encourage thorough investigation of the broad impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on human health, we caution against its widespread use as an instrumental variable to study other exposures of interest.
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 | 0.049 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".