MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406048753 · doi:10.1136/jnis-2024-022539

Statistical principles in neurointervention part 2. Multivariable analysis: generalized linear models, modification, confounding, and mediation

2025· review· en· W4406048753 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Harmon, William K. Diprose, Scott Brown, Johanna M. Ospel, Jessalyn K. Holodinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNeurological Foundation of New Zealand
KeywordsStatistical inferenceMultivariable calculusConfoundingMediationSeries (stratigraphy)Statistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceAutomatic summarizationLinear modelStatistical theoryData scienceEconometricsManagement scienceStatisticsMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This two part series on statistical principles in neurointervention offers a comprehensive foundation for neurointerventionalists to engage with both fundamental and advanced statistical principles. This series aims to equip neurointerventionalists with essential statistical knowledge for critically reviewing literature and conducting methodologically sound research. Part one of this series covered fundamental concepts such as frequentism, study types, data types, summarization, visualization, hypothesis testing, and univariable analysis. This review is the second part of the series and covers advanced statistical concepts such as inference versus prediction, multivariable analysis, choice of covariates, confounding, mediation, modification, and generalized linear models. Together, these papers create a cohesive framework, allowing practitioners to critically evaluate research and apply rigorous statistical methods to their own studies.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.744
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207