Validating an approach to overcome the immeasurable time bias in cohort studies: a real-world example and Monte Carlo simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immeasurable time bias arises from the lack of in-hospital medication information. It has been suggested that time-varying adjustment for hospitalization may minimize this potential bias. However, whereas we examined this issue in one case study, there remains a need to assess the validity of this approach in other settings. METHODS: Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we generated synthetic immeasurable time-varying hospitalization-related factors of duration, frequency and timing. Nine scenarios were created by combining three frequency scenarios and three duration scenarios, where the empirical cohort distribution of hospitalization was used to simulate the 'timing'. We used Korea's healthcare database and a case example of β-blocker use and mortality among patients with heart failure. We estimated the gold-standard hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI using inpatient and outpatient drug data, and that of the pseudo-outpatient setting using outpatient data only. We assessed the validity of adjusting for time-varying hospitalization in nine different scenarios, using relative bias, confidence limit ratio (CLR) and mean squared error (MSE) compared with the empirical gold-standard estimate across bootstrap resamples. RESULTS: With the real-world gold standard (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.80) as the reference estimate, adjusting for time-varying hospitalization (0.71; 0.63-0.80) effectively reduced the immeasurable time bias and had the following performance metrics across the nine scenarios: relative bias (range: -7.08% to 0.61%), CLR (1.28 to 1.36) and MSE (0.0005 to 0.0031). CONCLUSIONS: The approach of adjusting for time-varying hospitalization consistently reduced the immeasurable time bias in Monte Carlo simulated data.
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 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 | 0.108 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".