MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391716692 · doi:10.1186/s12874-024-02157-x

Model-based standardization using multiple imputation

2024· article· en· W4391716692 on OpenAlexafffund
Antonio Remiro‐Azócar, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCovariateParametric statisticsComputer scienceStatisticsOutcome (game theory)EconometricsImputation (statistics)Nonparametric statisticsStandardizationMissing dataData miningMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When studying the association between treatment and a clinical outcome, a parametric multivariable model of the conditional outcome expectation is often used to adjust for covariates. The treatment coefficient of the outcome model targets a conditional treatment effect. Model-based standardization is typically applied to average the model predictions over the target covariate distribution, and generate a covariate-adjusted estimate of the marginal treatment effect. METHODS: The standard approach to model-based standardization involves maximum-likelihood estimation and use of the non-parametric bootstrap. We introduce a novel, general-purpose, model-based standardization method based on multiple imputation that is easily applicable when the outcome model is a generalized linear model. We term our proposed approach multiple imputation marginalization (MIM). MIM consists of two main stages: the generation of synthetic datasets and their analysis. MIM accommodates a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally allows for the principled propagation of uncertainty, integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework, and allows for the incorporation of prior evidence. RESULTS: We conduct a simulation study to benchmark the finite-sample performance of MIM in conjunction with a parametric outcome model. The simulations provide proof-of-principle in scenarios with binary outcomes, continuous-valued covariates, a logistic outcome model and the marginal log odds ratio as the target effect measure. When parametric modeling assumptions hold, MIM yields unbiased estimation in the target covariate distribution, valid coverage rates, and similar precision and efficiency than the standard approach to model-based standardization. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that multiple imputation can be used to marginalize over a target covariate distribution, providing appropriate inference with a correctly specified parametric outcome model and offering statistical performance comparable to that of the standard approach to model-based standardization.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.758
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207