ArticleStatistics in medicine2023
Model misspecification and robust analysis for outcome-dependent sampling designs under generalized linear models.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dir-GLM: A Bayesian GLM With Data-Driven Reference Distribution.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Applying survey weights to ordinal regression models for improved inference in outcome-dependent samples with ordinal outcomes.Statistical methods in medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Outcome-dependent sampling (ODS) is a commonly used class of sampling designs to increase estimation efficiency in settings where response information (and possibly adjuster covariates) is available, but the exposure is expensive and/or cumbersome to collect. We focus on ODS within the context of a two-phase study, where in Phase One the response and adjuster covariate information is collected on a large cohort that is representative of the target population, but the expensive exposure variable is not yet measured. In Phase Two, using response information from Phase One, we selectively oversample a subset of informative subjects in whom we collect expensive exposure information. Importantly, the Phase Two sample is no longer representative, and we must use ascertainment-correcting analysis procedures for valid inferences. In this paper, we focus on likelihood-based analysis procedures, particularly a conditional-likelihood approach and a full-likelihood approach. Whereas the full-likelihood retains incomplete Phase One data for subjects not selected into Phase Two, the conditional-likelihood explicitly conditions on Phase Two sample selection (ie, it is a "complete case" analysis procedure). These designs and analysis procedures are typically implemented assuming a known, parametric model for the response distribution. However, in this paper, we approach analyses implementing a novel semi-parametric extension to generalized linear models (SPGLM) to develop likelihood-based procedures with improved robustness to misspecification of distributional assumptions. We specifically focus on the common setting where standard GLM distributional assumptions are not satisfied (eg, misspecified mean/variance relationship). We aim to provide practical design guidance and flexible tools for practitioners in these settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.