ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Sampling for computational efficiency when conducting analyses in big data.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A challenge to research in big data is the inherent computational intensity of analyses, particularly when using rigorous methods to address biases. We demonstrate the use of sampling methods in big data to estimate parameters using fewer resources. Our motivating question was whether lung cancer incidence differs by baseline HIV status, using a cohort of nearly 30 million Medicaid beneficiaries. We targeted three parameters (with listed estimator): incidence rate ratio (IRR, Poisson model), HR (Cox model), and risk ratio (RR, Kaplan-Meier). We controlled for confounders using inverse probability weighting. We ran analyses using the full sample and several sampling schemes: divide-and-recombine (10, 20, 50 samples), subcohort, and case-cohort. We compared point estimates, standard errors, computation time, and memory used. We observed 1113 incident lung cancer diagnoses among 180 980 beneficiaries with HIV and 33 106 diagnoses among 29 179 940 beneficiaries without HIV. Findings were similar across target parameters. The subcohort and case-cohort approaches had estimates closer to the full sample and were faster and less memory intensive than divide-and-recombine, especially when estimating the risk ratio. Including nonsampled cases in the case-cohort resulted in increases in computation time and memory relative to the subcohort approach.
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.