Multiplicative effect modelling: the general case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Generalized linear models, such as logistic regression, are widely used to model the association between a treatment and a binary outcome as a function of baseline covariates. However, the coefficients of a logistic regression model correspond to log odds ratios, while subject-matter scientists are often interested in relative risks. Although odds ratios are sometimes used to approximate relative risks, this approximation is appropriate only when the outcome of interest is rare for all levels of the covariates. Poisson regressions do measure multiplicative treatment effects including relative risks, but with a binary outcome not all combinations of parameters lead to fitted means that are between zero and one. Enforcing this constraint makes the parameters variation dependent, which is undesirable for modelling, estimation and computation. Focusing on the special case where the treatment is also binary, Richardson et al. (2017) proposed a novel binomial regression model that allows direct modelling of the relative risk. The model uses a log odds product nuisance model leading to variation-independent parameter spaces. Building on this we present general approaches to modelling the multiplicative effect of a continuous or categorical treatment on a binary outcome. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate the desirable performance of our proposed methods. An analysis of the relationship between passenger class and survival for passengers on the Titanic further exemplifies our methods.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".