MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388851130 · doi:10.1002/sim.9963

Two‐stage targeted maximum likelihood estimation for mixed aggregate and individual participant data analysis with an application to multidrug resistant tuberculosis

2023· article· en· W4388851130 on OpenAlexafffund
Arman Alam Siddique, Mireille E. Schnitzer, N. Balakrishnan, Giovanni Sotgiu, Mario H. Vargas, Dick Menzies, Andrea Benedetti

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAggregate dataWeightingComputer scienceMissing dataEstimationTuberculosisAggregate (composite)Inverse probability weightingMeta-analysisStatisticsPopulationContrast (vision)MedicineEconometricsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsInternal medicineEstimatorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we develop a new method for the meta-analysis of mixed aggregate data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD). The method is an adaptation of inverse probability weighted targeted maximum likelihood estimation (IPW-TMLE), which was initially proposed for two-stage sampled data. Our methods are motivated by a systematic review investigating treatment effectiveness for multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) where the available data include IPD from some studies but only AD from others. One complication in this application is that participants with MDR-TB are typically treated with multiple antimicrobial agents where many such medications were not observed in all studies considered in the meta-analysis. We focus here on the estimation of the expected potential outcome while intervening on a specific medication but not intervening on any others. Our method involves the implementation of a TMLE that transports the estimation from studies where the treatment is observed to the full target population. A second weighting component adjusts for the studies with missing (inaccessible) IPD. We demonstrate the properties of the proposed method and contrast it with alternative approaches in a simulation study. We finally apply this method to estimate treatment effectiveness in the MDR-TB case study.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207