MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322758210 · doi:10.1111/ajo.13656

Subgroup effects should be examined using both relative and absolute effect measures

2023· article· en· W4322758210 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Socha, Sam Harper, Jennifer A. Hutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelative riskAbsolute risk reductionMedicineAbsolute (philosophy)Subgroup analysisScale (ratio)Odds ratioStatisticsDemographyInternal medicineConfidence intervalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment effects can be measured on the relative scale (eg, risk ratios, odds ratios) or the absolute scale (eg, risk differences). If the baseline risk of an outcome is different between subgroups, the effect of the treatment will differ between subgroups on at least one scale (relative, absolute, or both). We illustrate this using two examples from the literature where only relative effects were estimated, but conclusions about subgroup differences would likely have changed had absolute effects also been considered. To identify all meaningful subgroup differences, researchers and clinicians should compare effects on the relative and absolute scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.467
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4670.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.025
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.450
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.029 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207