MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389734370 · doi:10.1186/s12874-023-02121-1

Developing non-response weights to account for attrition-related bias in a longitudinal pregnancy cohort

2023· article· en· W4389734370 on OpenAlexafffund
Tona M. Pitt, Erin Hetherington, Kamala Adhikari, Shainur Premji, Nicole Racine, Suzanne Tough, Sheila McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusUniversity of OttawaProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesChildren's Hospital FoundationAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsStatisticsLogistic regressionReceiver operating characteristicConfidence intervalLasso (programming language)CalibrationMedicineCohortInverse probabilityMathematicsCohort studyComputer sciencePosterior probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prospective cohorts may be vulnerable to bias due to attrition. Inverse probability weights have been proposed as a method to help mitigate this bias. The current study used the "All Our Families" longitudinal pregnancy cohort of 3351 maternal-infant pairs and aimed to develop inverse probability weights using logistic regression models to predict study continuation versus drop-out from baseline to the three-year data collection wave. METHODS: Two methods of variable selection took place. One method was a knowledge-based a priori variable selection approach, while the second used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO). The ability of each model to predict continuing participation through discrimination and calibration for both approaches were evaluated by examining area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and calibration plots, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability weights were generated using predicted probabilities. Weight performance was assessed using standardized differences of baseline characteristics for those who continue in study and those that do not, with and without weights (unadjusted estimates). RESULTS: The a priori and LASSO variable selection method prediction models had good and fair discrimination with AUROC of 0.69 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.67-0.71) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71-0.75), respectively. Calibration plots and non-significant Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Tests indicated that both the a priori (p = 0.329) and LASSO model (p = 0.242) were well-calibrated. Unweighted results indicated large (> 10%) standardized differences in 15 demographic variables (range: 11 - 29%), when comparing those who continued in the study with those that did not. Weights derived from the a priori and LASSO models reduced standardized differences relative to unadjusted estimates, with the largest differences of 13% and 5%, respectively. Additionally, when applying the same LASSO variable selection method to develop weights in future data collection waves, standardized differences remained below 10% for each demographic variable. CONCLUSION: The LASSO variable selection approach produced robust weights that addressed non-response bias more than the knowledge-driven approach. These weights can be applied to analyses across multiple longitudinal waves of data collection to reduce bias.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.697
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.109 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207