Statistical primer: individual patient data meta-analysis and meta-analytic approaches in case of non-proportional hazards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses build upon traditional (aggregate data) meta-analyses by collecting IPD from the individual studies rather than using aggregated summary data. Although both traditional and IPD meta-analyses produce a summary effect estimate, IPD meta-analyses allow for the analysis of data to be performed as a single dataset. This allows for standardization of exposure, outcomes, and analytic methods across individual studies. IPD meta-analyses also allow the utilization of statistical methods typically used in cohort studies, such as multivariable regression, survival analysis, propensity score matching, uniform subgroup and sensitivity analyses, better management of missing data, and incorporation of unpublished data. However, they are more time-intensive, costly, and subject to participation bias. A separate issue relates to the meta-analytic challenges when the proportional hazards assumption is violated. In these instances, alternative methods of reporting time-to-event estimates, such as restricted mean survival time should be used. This statistical primer summarizes key concepts in both scenarios and provides pertinent examples.
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 | 0.077 | 0.418 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.011 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".