MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376112662 · doi:10.1515/ijb-2022-0040

Exact correction factor for estimating the OR in the presence of sparse data with a zero cell in 2 × 2 tables

2023· article· en· W4376112662 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biostatistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZero (linguistics)StatisticsMathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In case-control studies, odds ratios (OR) are calculated from 2 × 2 tables and in some instances, we observe small cell counts or zero counts in one of the cells. The corrections to calculate the ORs in the presence of empty cells are available in literature. Some of these include Yates continuity correction and Agresti and Coull correction. However, the available methods provided different corrections and the situations where each could be applied are not very apparent. Therefore, the current research proposes an iterative algorithm of estimating an exact (optimum) correction factor for the respective sample size. This was evaluated by simulating data with varying proportions and sample sizes. The estimated correction factor was considered after obtaining the bias, standard error of odds ratio, root mean square error and the coverage probability. Also, we have presented a linear function to identify the exact correction factor using sample size and proportion.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.269 · 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