DOI:10.1093/aje/kwn299 Practice of Epidemiology Instrumental Variable Analysis for Estimation of Treatment Effects With Dichotomous
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instrumental variable analyses are increasingly used in epidemiologic studies. For dichotomous exposures and outcomes, the typical 2-stage least squares approach produces risk difference estimates rather than relative risk estimates and is criticized for assuming normally distributed errors. Using 2 example drug safety studies evaluated in 3 cohorts from Pennsylvania (1994–2003) and British Columbia, Canada (1996–2004), the authors compared instrumental variable techniques that yield relative risk and risk difference estimates and that are appropriate for dichotomous exposures and outcomes. Methods considered include probit structural equation models, 2-stage logistic models, and generalized method of moments estimators. Employing these methods, in the first study the authors observed relative risks ranging from 0.41 to 0.58 and risk differences ranging from 1.41 per 100 to 1.28 per 100; in the second, they observed relative risks of 1.38–2.07 and risk differences of 7.53–8.94; and in the third, they observed relative risks of 1.45–1.59 and risk differences of 3.88–4.84. The 2-stage logistic models showed standard errors up to 40 % larger than those of the instrumental variable probit model. Generalized method of moments estimation produced substantially the same results as the 2-stage logistic method. Few substantive differences among the methods were observed, despite their reliance on distinct assumptions. antipsychotic agents; confounding factors (epidemiology); instrumental variable; pharmacoepidemiology Abbreviations: APM, antipsychotic medication; COX-2, cyclooxygenase 2; GMM, generalized method of moments; NSAID, non-
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.423 | 0.243 |
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".