Flexible piecewise linear model for investigating dose-response relationship in meta-analysis: methodology, examples, and comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is widely employed to establishing the potential dose-response relationship between continuous exposures and disease outcomes. However, no method is readily available for exploring the relation between a discrete exposure and a binary or continuous outcome. We proposed a piecewise linear (PL) DRMA model as a solution to this issue. Methods: We illustrated the methodology of PL model in both one-stage DRMA approach and two-stage DRMA approach. The method by testing the equality of slopes of each piecewise was employed to judge if there is “piecewise effect” against simple linear trend. We then used sleep (continuous exposure) and parity (discrete exposure) data as examples to illustrate how to apply PL model in DRMA using the Stata code attached. We also empirically compared the slopes of PL model with simple linear as well as restricted cubic spline (RCS) model. Results: Both one-stage and two-stage PL DRMA model fitted well in our examples, and the results were similar. Obvious “piecewise effects” were detected in both the two examples by the method we used. In our example, the PL model showed better fitting effect and practical reliable results compared to simple linear model, while similar results for to RCS model. Conclusion: Piecewise linear function is a simple and valid method for DRMA and can be used for discrete exposures. It also represents a superior model to linear model in DRMA and may be an alternative model to non-linear model.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
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 | 0.075 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".