Marginal Versus Conditional Odds Ratios When Updating Risk Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk prediction models often need to be updated when applied to new settings. A simple updating method involves fixed odds ratio transformation of predicted risks to adjust the model for outcome prevalence in the new setting. When a sample from the target population is available, the gold standard is to use a logistic regression model to estimate this odds ratio. A simpler method has been proposed that calculates this odds ratio from the prevalence estimates in the original and new samples. We show that the marginal odds ratio estimated in this way is generally closer to one than the correct (conditional) odds ratio; thus, the simpler method should be avoided when individual-level data are available. When such data are not available, we suggest an approximate method for recovering the conditional odds ratio from the variance of predicted risks in the development sample. Brief simulations and examples show that this approach reduces undercorrection, often substantially.
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 | 0.049 | 0.335 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".