MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198343911 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11772

Optimal multiwave validation of secondary use data with outcome and exposure misclassification

2023· article· en· W3198343911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah C. Lotspeich, Gustavo Amorim, Pamela A. Shaw, Ran Tao, Bryan E. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institutes of HealthVanderbilt UniversityPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsEstimatorComputer scienceVariance (accounting)Outcome (game theory)Optimal designObservational studyData miningMathematical optimizationGridResource (disambiguation)Machine learningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational databases provide unprecedented opportunities for secondary use in biomedical research. However, these data can be error-prone and must be validated before use. It is usually unrealistic to validate the whole database because of resource constraints. A cost-effective alternative is a two-phase design that validates a subset of records enriched for information about a particular research question. We consider odds ratio estimation under differential outcome and exposure misclassification and propose optimal designs that minimize the variance of the maximum likelihood estimator. Our adaptive grid search algorithm can locate the optimal design in a computationally feasible manner. Because the optimal design relies on unknown parameters, we introduce a multiwave strategy to approximate the optimal design. We demonstrate the proposed design's efficiency gains through simulations and two large observational 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.079 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207