Statistical and Scientific Considerations Concerning the Interpretation, Replicability, and Transportability of Research Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To advance scientific understanding of disease processes and related intervention effects, study results should be free from bias and replicable. More broadly, investigators seek results that are transportable, that is, applicable to a perceived study population as well as in other environments and populations. We review fundamental statistical issues that arise in the analysis of observational data from disease cohorts and other sources and discuss how these issues affect the transportability and replicability of research results. Much of the literature focuses on estimating average exposure or intervention effects at the population level, but we argue for more nuanced analyses of conditional effects that reflect the complexity of disease processes.
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 | 0.670 | 0.902 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".