MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179197834 · doi:10.1002/jac5.1501

A practical introduction to conducting and using <scp>case‐control</scp> studies

2021· article· en· W3179197834 on OpenAlex
Cynthia A. Jackevicius

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Observational studyControl (management)OddsSelection (genetic algorithm)Key (lock)Selection biasComputer scienceMedicineManagement scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringArtificial intelligencePathologyComputer securityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Case‐control studies are a commonly encountered observational study design in pharmacy practice and pharmacotherapy research. This practical introduction to conducting and using case‐control studies focuses on the key risk of bias concepts related to the selection of cases and controls and measurement of the exposure. This article also explains how to calculate and interpret odds ratios for exposure in the context of case‐control studies. Finally, considerations for the applicability of case‐control study findings are provided in the context of clinical decision‐making around harmful exposures. Practical checklists are provided for users and researchers conducting case‐control studies.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.649
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.649
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.740
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.076 · 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