Meta‐analysis with sample‐standardization in multi‐site studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conceptualize a particular target population and estimand for multi-site pharmacoepidemiologic studies within data networks and to analytically examine sample-standardization as a meta-analytic method compared with inverse-variance weighted meta-analyses. METHODS: The target population of interest is all and only all individuals from the data-contributing sites. Standardization, a general conditioning technique frequently employed for confounding control, was adopted to estimate the network-wide causal treatment effect. Specifically, the proposed sample-standardization yields a meta-analysis estimator, that is, a weighted summation of site-specific results, where the weight for a site is the proportion of its size in the entire network. This sample-standardization estimator was evaluated analytically in comparison to estimators from inverse-variance weighted fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses in terms of statistical consistency. RESULTS: A proof is reported to justify the consistency of the sample-standardization estimator with and without treatment effect heterogeneity by site. Both inverse-variance weighted fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses were found to generally result in inconsistent estimators in the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity by site for this particular target population and estimand. CONCLUSIONS: Sample-standardization is a valid approach to generate causal inference in multi-site studies when the target population comprises all and only all individuals within the network, even in the presence of heterogeneity of treatment effect by site. Multi-site studies should clearly specify the target population and estimand to help select the most appropriate meta-analytic methods.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".