Meta-analysis on studies with heterogeneous and partially observed covariates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual participant data meta-analysis is a commonly used alternative to the traditional aggregate data meta-analysis. It is popular because it avoids relying on published results and enables direct adjustment for relevant covariates. However, a practical challenge is that the studies being combined often vary in terms of the potential confounders that were measured. Furthermore, it will inevitably be the case that some individuals have missing values for some of those covariates. In this paper, we demonstrate how these challenges can be resolved using a propensity score approach, combined with multiple imputation, as a strategy to adjust for covariates in the context of individual participant data meta-analysis. To illustrate, we analyze data from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded Healthy Birth, Growth, and Development Knowledge Integration project to investigate the relationship between physical growth rate in the first year of life and cognition measured later during childhood. We found that the overall effect of average growth velocity on cognitive outcome is slightly, but significantly, positive with an estimated effect size of 0.36 (95% CI 0.18, 0.55).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it