A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID‐19 Vaccine Effectiveness Under the Test‐Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The test‐negative design (TND), which is routinely used for monitoring seasonal flu vaccine effectiveness (VE), has recently become integral to COVID‐19 vaccine surveillance, notably in Québec, Canada. Some studies have addressed the identifiability and estimation of causal parameters under the TND, but efficiency bounds for nonparametric estimators of the target parameter under the unconfoundedness assumption have not yet been investigated. Motivated by the goal of improving adjustment for measured confounders when estimating COVID‐19 VE among community‐dwelling people aged years in Québec, we propose a one‐step doubly robust and locally efficient estimator called TNDDR (TND doubly robust), which utilizes cross‐fitting (sample splitting) and can incorporate machine learning techniques to estimate the nuisance functions and thus improve control for measured confounders. We derive the efficient influence function (EIF) for the marginal expectation of the outcome under a vaccination intervention, explore the von Mises expansion, and establish the conditions for ‐consistency, asymptotic normality, and double robustness of TNDDR. The proposed estimator is supported by both theoretical and empirical justifications.
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 | 0.073 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".