MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280574235 · doi:10.1111/irv.12999

Methods to account for measured and unmeasured confounders in influenza relative vaccine effectiveness studies: A brief review of the literature

2022· review· en· W4280574235 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew M. Loiacono, Robertus van Aalst, Darya Pokutnaya, Salaheddin M. Mahmud, Joshua Nealon

Bibliographic record

VenueInfluenza and Other Respiratory Viruses · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
FundersSanofi
KeywordsConfoundingObservational studyComparabilityStatisticsEconometricsCredibilityComputer scienceMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational seasonal influenza relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) studies employ a variety of statistical methods to account for confounding and biases. To better understand the range of methods employed and implications for policy, we conducted a brief literature review. Across 37 included rVE studies, 10 different types of statistical methods were identified, and only eight studies reported methods to detect residual confounding, highlighting the heterogeneous state of the literature. To improve the comparability and credibility of future rVE research, researchers should clearly explain methods and design choices and implement methods to detect and quantify residual confounding.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.092 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfluenza and Other Respiratory VirusesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207