MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384283005 · doi:10.1093/ije/dyad102

Identifiability of causal effects in test-negative design studies

2023· article· en· W4384283005 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Shrier, Steven D. Stovitz, Johannes Textor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersSimons Institute for the Theory of Computing, University of California Berkeley
KeywordsDirected acyclic graphCausal inferenceIdentifiabilityOutcome (game theory)Causal modelCovariateComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Causality (physics)EconometricsStatisticsMachine learningMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are often used to select variables in a regression model to identify causal effects. Outcome-based sampling studies, such as the 'test-negative design' used to assess vaccine effectiveness, present unique challenges that are not addressed by the common back-door criterion. Here we discuss intuitive, graphical approaches to explain why the common back-door criterion cannot be used for identification of population average causal effects with outcome-based sampling studies. We also describe graphical rules that can be used instead in outcome-based sampling studies when the objective is limited to determining if the causal odds ratio is identifiable, and illustrate recent changes to the free online software Dagitty which incorporate these principles.

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)0.306
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.693
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3060.693
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.133 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EpidemiologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207