×
Well done. You've clicked the tower. This would actually achieve something if you had logged in first. Use the key for that. The name takes you home. This is where all the applicables sit. And you can't apply any changes to my site unless you are logged in.

Our policy is best summarized as "we don't care about _you_, we care about _them_", no emails, so no forgetting your password. You have no rights. It's like you don't even exist. If you publish material, I reserve the right to remove it, or use it myself.

Don't impersonate. Don't name someone involuntarily. You can lose everything if you cross the line, and no, I won't cancel your automatic payments first, so you'll have to do it the hard way. See how serious this sounds? That's how serious you're meant to take these.

×
Register


Required. 150 characters or fewer. Letters, digits and @/./+/-/_ only.
  • Your password can’t be too similar to your other personal information.
  • Your password must contain at least 8 characters.
  • Your password can’t be a commonly used password.
  • Your password can’t be entirely numeric.
Enter the same password as before, for verification.
Login

Grow A Dic
Define A Word
Make Space
Set Task
Mark Post
Apply Votestyle
Create Votes
(From: saved spaces)
Exclude Votes
Apply Dic
Exclude Dic

Corrected Correlation Estimates for Meta-Analysis

Click here to flash read.

arXiv:2404.11678v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Meta-analysis allows rigorous aggregation of estimates and uncertainty across multiple studies. When a given study reports multiple estimates, such as log odds ratios (ORs) or log relative risks (RRs) across exposure groups, accounting for within-study correlations improves accuracy and efficiency of meta-analytic results. Canonical approaches of Greenland-Longnecker and Hamling estimate pseudo cases and non-cases for exposure groups to obtain within-study correlations. However, currently available implementations for both methods fail on simple examples.
We review both GL and Hamling methods through the lens of optimization. For ORs, we provide modifications of each approach that ensure convergence for any feasible inputs. For GL, this is achieved through a new connection to entropic minimization. For Hamling, a modification leads to a provably solvable equivalent set of equations given a specific initialization. For each, we provide implementations a guaranteed to work for any feasible input.
For RRs, we show the new GL approach is always guaranteed to succeed, but any Hamling approach may fail: we give counter-examples where no solutions exist. We derive a sufficient condition on reported RRs that guarantees success when reported variances are all equal.

Click here to read this post out
ID: 813678; Unique Viewers: 0
Unique Voters: 0
Total Votes: 0
Votes:
Latest Change: April 19, 2024, 7:33 a.m. Changes:
/u/anonymous
Dictionaries:
Words:
Spaces:
Views: 9
CC:
No creative common's license
Comments: