MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408297730 · doi:10.1017/rsm.2025.2

Effect modification and non-collapsibility together may lead to conflicting treatment decisions: A review of marginal and conditional estimands and recommendations for decision-making

2025· review· en· W4408297730 on OpenAlexaff
David Phillippo, Antonio Remiro‐Azócar, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio, Sofia Dias, A. E. Ades, Nicky J. Welton

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsLead (geology)Marginal structural modelComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Actuarial scienceEconometricsEconomicsBusinessCausal inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effect modification occurs when a covariate alters the relative effectiveness of treatment compared to control. It is widely understood that, when effect modification is present, treatment recommendations may vary by population and by subgroups within the population. Population-adjustment methods are increasingly used to adjust for differences in effect modifiers between study populations and to produce population-adjusted estimates in a relevant target population for decision-making. It is also widely understood that marginal and conditional estimands for non-collapsible effect measures, such as odds ratios or hazard ratios, do not in general coincide even without effect modification. However, the consequences of both non-collapsibility and effect modification together are little-discussed in the literature.In this article, we set out the definitions of conditional and marginal estimands, illustrate their properties when effect modification is present, and discuss the implications for decision-making. In particular, we show that effect modification can result in conflicting treatment rankings between conditional and marginal estimates. This is because conditional and marginal estimands correspond to different decision questions that are no longer aligned when effect modification is present. For time-to-event outcomes, the presence of covariates implies that marginal hazard ratios are time-varying, and effect modification can cause marginal hazard curves to cross. We conclude with practical recommendations for decision-making in the presence of effect modification, based on pragmatic comparisons of both conditional and marginal estimates in the decision target population. Currently, multilevel network meta-regression is the only population-adjustment method capable of producing both conditional and marginal estimates, in any decision target population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.536
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.157 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Synthesis MethodsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207