The use of categorical regression in evidence integration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure-response assessment methods have shifted towards more quantitative approaches, with health risk assessors exploring more statistically driven techniques. These assessments, however, usually rely on one critical health effect from a single key study. Categorical regression addresses this limitation by incorporating data from all relevant studies – including human, animal, and mechanistic studies – thereby including a broad spectrum of health endpoints and exposure levels for exposure-response analysis in an objective manner. Categorical regression requires the establishment of ordered response categories corresponding to increasingly severe adverse health outcomes and the availability of a comprehensive database that summarizes all data on different outcomes from different studies, including the exposure or dose at which these out-comes are observed and their severity. It has found application in the risk assessment of essential nutrients and trace metals. Since adverse effects may arise from either deficient or excess exposure, the exposure-response curve is U-shaped, which provides a basis for determining optimal intake levels that minimize the joint risks of deficiency and excess. This article provides an overview of the use of categorical regression fit exposure-response models incorporating data from multiple evidence streams. An extension of categorical regression that permits the simultaneous analysis of excess and deficiency toxicity data is presented and applied to comprehensive databases on copper and manganese. Future applications of cat-egorical regression will be able to make greater use of diverse data sets developed using new approach methodologies, which can be expected to provide valuable information on toxic responses of varying severity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it