ArticleBiometrics2024
Flagging unusual clusters based on linear mixed models using weighted and self-calibrated predictors.
Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Statistical models incorporating cluster-specific intercepts are commonly used in hierarchical settings, for example, observations clustered within patients or patients clustered within hospitals. Predicted values of these intercepts are often used to identify or "flag" extreme or outlying clusters, such as poorly performing hospitals or patients with rapid declines in their health. We consider a variety of flagging rules, assessing different predictors, and using different accuracy measures. Using theoretical calculations and comprehensive numerical evaluation, we show that previously proposed rules based on the 2 most commonly used predictors, the usual best linear unbiased predictor and fixed effects predictor, perform extremely poorly: the incorrect flagging rates are either unacceptably high (approaching 0.5 in the limit) or overly conservative (eg, much <0.05 for reasonable parameter values, leading to very low correct flagging rates). We develop novel methods for flagging extreme clusters that can control the incorrect flagging rates, including very simple-to-use versions that we call "self-calibrated." The new methods have substantially higher correct flagging rates than previously proposed methods for flagging extreme values, while controlling the incorrect flagging rates. We illustrate their application using data on length of stay in pediatric hospitals for children admitted for asthma diagnoses.
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.