Exact Inference for Random Effects Meta-Analyses for Small, Sparse Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meta-analysis aggregates information across related studies to provide more reliable statistical inference and has been a vital tool for assessing the safety and efficacy of many high-profile pharmaceutical products. A key challenge in conducting a meta-analysis is that the number of related studies is typically small. Applying classical methods that are asymptotic in the number of studies can compromise the validity of inference, particularly when heterogeneity across studies is present. Moreover, serious adverse events are often rare and can result in one or more studies with no events in at least one study arm. Practitioners remove studies in which no events have occurred in one or both arms or apply arbitrary continuity corrections (e.g., adding one event to arms with zero events) to stabilize or define effect estimates in such settings, which can further invalidate subsequent inference. To address these significant practical issues, we introduce an exact inference method for random effects meta-analysis of a treatment effect in the two-sample setting with rare events, which we coin "XRRmeta". In contrast to existing methods, XRRmeta provides valid inference for meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity and when the event rates, number of studies, and/or the within-study sample sizes are small. Extensive numerical studies indicate that XRRmeta does not yield overly conservative inference. We apply our proposed method to two real-data examples using our open-source R package.
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 | 0.140 | 0.417 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".