BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexander Pate

Alexander Pate contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsDigital LibrariesMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Minimum Sample Size for Developing a Multivariable Prediction Model using Multinomial Logistic Regression

Multinomial logistic regression models allow one to predict the risk of a categorical outcome with more than 2 categories. When developing such a model, researchers should ensure the number of participants (n) is appropriate relative to the number of events (E.k) and the number of predictor parameters (p.k) for each category k. We propose three criteria to determine the minimum n required in light of existing criteria developed for binary outcomes. The first criteria aims to minimise the model overfitting. The second aims to minimise the difference between the observed and adjusted R2 Nagelkerke. The third criterion aims to ensure the overall risk is estimated precisely. For criterion (i), we show the sample size must be based on the anticipated Cox-snell R2 of distinct one-to-one logistic regression models corresponding to the sub-models of the multinomial logistic regression, rather than on the overall Cox-snell R2 of the multinomial logistic regression. We tested the performance of the proposed criteria (i) through a simulation study, and found that it resulted in the desired level of overfitting. Criterion (ii) and (iii) are natural extensions from previously proposed criteria for binary outcomes. We illustrate how to implement the sample size criteria through a worked example considering the development of a multinomial risk prediction model for tumour type when presented with an ovarian mass. Code is provided for the simulation and worked example. We will embed our proposed criteria within the pmsampsize R library and Stata modules.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Towards a Framework for the Design, Implementation and Reporting of Methodology Scoping Reviews

Background: In view of the growth of published papers, there is an increasing need for studies that summarise scientific research. An increasingly common review is a 'Methodology scoping review', which provides a summary of existing analytical methods, techniques and software, proposed or applied in research articles, which address an analytical problem or further an analytical approach. However, guidelines for their design, implementation and reporting are limited. Methods: Drawing on the experiences of the authors, which were consolidated through a series of face-to-face workshops, we summarise the challenges inherent in conducting a methodology scoping review and offer suggestions of best practice to promote future guideline development. Results: We identified three challenges of conducting a methodology scoping review. First, identification of search terms; one cannot usually define the search terms a priori and the language used for a particular method can vary across the literature. Second, the scope of the review requires careful consideration since new methodology is often not described (in full) within abstracts. Third, many new methods are motivated by a specific clinical question, where the methodology may only be documented in supplementary materials. We formulated several recommendations that build upon existing review guidelines. These recommendations ranged from an iterative approach to defining search terms through to screening and data extraction processes. Conclusion: Although methodology scoping reviews are an important aspect of research, there is currently a lack of guidelines to standardise their design, implementation and reporting. We recommend a wider discussion on this topic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access