Exact Meta-Analysis Approach for Discrete Data and its Application to 2 × 2 Tables With Rare Events
离散数据的精确荟萃分析及其稀有事件列联表应用AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论离散数据荟萃分析,医学稀有事件不构成金融尾部风险,也未提供所列经济计量方向的直接依据。
离散数据的精确荟萃分析及其稀有事件列联表应用AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
) associated with the exact tests from individual studies. It encompasses a broad class of exact meta-analysis methods, as it permits broad choices for the combining elements, such as tests used in individual studies, and any parameter of interest. The approach yields statements that explicitly account for the impact of individual studies on the overall inference, in terms of efficiency/power and the type I error rate. Those statements also give rises to empirical methods for further enhancing the combined inference. Although the proposed approach is for general discrete settings, for convenience, it is illustrated throughout using the setting of meta-analysis of multiple 2 × 2 tables. In the context of rare events data, such as observing few, zero or zero total (i.e., zero events in both arms) outcomes in binomial trials or 2 × 2 tables, most existing meta-analysis methods rely on the large-sample approximations which may yield invalid inference. The commonly used corrections to zero outcomes in rare events data, aiming to improve numerical performance can also incur undesirable consequences. The proposed approach applies readily to any rare event setting, including even the zero total event studies without any artificial correction. While debates continue on whether or how zero total event studies should be incorporated in meta-analysis, the proposed approach has the advantage of automatically including those studies and thus making use of all available data. Through numerical studies in rare events settings, the proposed exact approach is shown to be efficient and, generally, outperform commonly used meta-analysis methods, including Mental-Haenszel and Peto methods.
We study difference-in-differences designs in which all units are initially untreated and later receive heterogeneous, strictly positive treatment doses. When quasi-untreated units receive doses close to zero, a difference-in-difference estimand using those units as the control group identifies a weighted average treatment effect per unit of treatment, under a parallel-trends assumption. We develop a nonparametric estimator and bias-corrected confidence intervals for this…
伪面板事件研究:可信应用的计量经济学基础
Event studies with panel data are widely used to estimate treatment effects. With repeated cross-sections, future treatment dates are unobserved for untreated individuals. Pseudo-panel event studies impute pre-treatment outcomes of the treated using matched untreated individuals. This paper establishes identification in such designs and characterizes bias when identification conditions fail. I show that the pseudo-panel regression is equivalent to weighted least squares with…
We develop the first empirically implementable selective-inference framework for difference-in-differences with controls selected by pre-treatment fit. We construct confidence intervals for the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), incorporating that selection and estimating the unknown full covariance from the same observations. Counterexamples establish undercoverage from Roth's fixed-comparison pretest adjustment and direct Gaussian-score application of…
Researchers often report an estimate and confidence interval only if a specification test does not reject - for example, only if a pre-trend test supports a difference-in-differences design. Does this make the reported confidence interval less reliable? We show that when the identifying assumptions hold, the answer is no: conditional on passing the pre-test, the confidence interval may over-cover but cannot under-cover. When the assumptions fail, pre-testing can reduce…
以模型平均替代处理前趋势检验
We study difference-in-differences (DID) estimation of average treatment effects on the treated when the researcher is uncertain about which pre-treatment periods satisfy the parallel trends assumption. Roth (2022) shows that pre-trend testing can induce bias, complementing the statistical literature on post-selection inference. We propose the model averaged difference-in-differences (MADID) estimator, a weighted average of the candidate $2\times2$ DID estimators. The…
利用辅助事件信息进行删失结局的因果推断
Clinical trials with survival endpoints lose information when participants are censored before death is observed. We develop target-preserving estimators that use posttreatment disease history, such as recurrence or progression, to recover information lost to censoring for marginal survival and restricted mean survival effects. The difficulty is that the intermediate event is downstream of treatment: naive adjustment can change the causal estimand, and the useful information…