MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196761963 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000012777

Applying Propensity Score Methods in Clinical Research in Neurology

2021· article· en· W3196761963 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsPropensity score matchingObservational studyCovariateMatching (statistics)MedicineWeightingStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Propensity score-based analysis is increasingly being used in observational studies to estimate the effects of treatments, interventions, and exposures. We introduce the concept of the propensity score and how it can be used in observational research. We describe 4 different ways of using the propensity score: matching on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment on the propensity score (with a focus on the first 2). We provide recommendations for the use and reporting of propensity score methods for the conduct of observational studies in neurologic research.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
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 score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.748
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.121 · 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