MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239067159 · doi:10.1177/0962280218811186

Authors' reply: Letter to the Editor: Comparison of statistical approaches dealing with time-dependent confounding in drug effectiveness studies (SMMR, Vol 27, Issue 6, 2018)

2018· letter· en· W4239067159 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ehsanul Karim, John Petkau, Paul Gustafson, Robert W. Platt

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaJewish General HospitalProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingComputer scienceEconometricsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207