A practical guide to conducting dose-response meta-analyses in epidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dose-response relationships between continuous risk factors and disease outcomes are necessary for understanding the risks related to different levels of exposure. Dose-response risk curves can lead to more targeted public health messaging, prevention efforts, and policy implementation. Meta-analyses are often used to combine statistical results from different studies and can be used to model dose-response relationships. However, several challenges are encountered when performing dose-response meta-analysis, such as having heterogeneous reference categories, inconsistent measures of risk, and determining the most accurate shape of the curve. In this paper, we propose a three-step process for estimating dose-response relationships via meta-analysis, which involves: 1) harmonizing the measures of risk, 2) homogenizing the reference category, and 3) selecting meta-regression models. We use data obtained from a systematic review on the dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and the risk of chronic liver disease to provide an example of the proposed process.
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 | 0.079 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.029 |
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".