Systematic Review Reveals Lack of Causal Methodology Applied to Pooled Longitudinal Observational Infectious Disease Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Among ID studies seeking to make causal inferences and pooling individual-level longitudinal data from multiple infectious disease cohorts, we sought to assess what methods are being used, how those methods are being reported, and whether these factors have changed over time. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of longitudinal observational infectious disease studies pooling individual-level patient data from 2+ studies published in English in 2009, 2014, or 2019. This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020204104). RESULTS: Our search yielded 1,462 unique articles. Of these, 16 were included in the final review. Our analysis showed a lack of causal inference methods and of clear reporting on methods and the required assumptions. CONCLUSION: There are many approaches to causal inference which may help facilitate accurate inference in the presence of unmeasured and time-varying confounding. In observational ID studies leveraging pooled, longitudinal IPD, the absence of these causal inference methods and gaps in the reporting of key methodological considerations suggests there is ample opportunity to enhance the rigor and reporting of research in this field. Interdisciplinary collaborations between substantive and methodological experts would strengthen future work.
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 | 0.339 | 0.702 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".