Control of Weekly Time Trend in Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case-crossover designs have become widespread in biomedical investigations of transient associations. However, the most popular reference-selection strategy - the time-stratified scheme - may not be an optimum solution to control systematic bias in case-crossover studies. To prove this, we conducted a time series decomposition for daily ozone records and examined the capability of the time-stratified scheme to control for yearly, monthly, and weekly time trends; and observed its failure on the control for the weekly time trend. To solve this issue, we proposed a new logistic regression approach in which we suggest the adjustment for the weekly time trend. We compared the performance of the proposed with that of the traditional method by simulation. We further conducted an empirical study to explore the performance of the new logistic regression approach in examining potential associations between ambient air pollutants and acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations. The time-stratified scheme provides effective control for yearly and monthly time trends but not of the weekly time trend. Uncontrolled weekly time trends could be the dominant source of systematic bias in time-stratified case-crossover studies. In contrast, the proposed logistic regression approach can effectively minimize systematic bias in a case-crossover 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 | 0.093 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".