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

Russell Steele

Russell Steele contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsecon.EMmath.STQuantitative MethodsStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
6topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Injury risk increases minimally over a large range of changes in activity level in children

Background: Limited research exists on the association between changes in physical activity levels and injury in children. Objective: To assess how well different variations of the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR), a measure of change in activity, predict injury in children. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from 1670 Danish schoolchildren measured over 5.5 years (2008 to 2014). Coupled 4-week, uncoupled 4-week, and uncoupled 5-week ACWRs were calculated using activity frequency in the past week as the acute load (numerator), and average weekly activity frequency in the past 4 or 5 weeks as the chronic load (denominator). We modelled the relationship between different ACWR variations and injury using generalized linear and generalized additive models, with and without accounting for repeated measures. Results: The prognostic relationship between the ACWR and injury risk was best represented using a generalized additive mixed model for the uncoupled 5-week ACWR. It predicted an injury risk of ~3% for ACWRs between 0.8 (activity level decreased by 20%) and 1.5 (activity level increased by 50%). When activity decreased by more than 20% (ACWR< 0.8), injury risk was lower (minimum of 1.5% at ACWR=0). When activity increased by more than 50% (ACWR > 1.5), injury risk was higher (maximum of 6% at ACWR = 5). Girls were at significantly higher risk of injury than boys. Conclusion: Increases in physical activity in children are associated with much lower injury risks compared to previous results in adults.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Causal Simulation Experiments: Lessons from Bias Amplification

Recent theoretical work in causal inference has explored an important class of variables which, when conditioned on, may further amplify existing unmeasured confounding bias (bias amplification). Despite this theoretical work, existing simulations of bias amplification in clinical settings have suggested bias amplification may not be as important in many practical cases as suggested in the theoretical literature.We resolve this tension by using tools from the semi-parametric regression literature leading to a general characterization in terms of the geometry of OLS estimators which allows us to extend current results to a larger class of DAGs, functional forms, and distributional assumptions. We further use these results to understand the limitations of current simulation approaches and to propose a new framework for performing causal simulation experiments to compare estimators. We then evaluate the challenges and benefits of extending this simulation approach to the context of a real clinical data set with a binary treatment, laying the groundwork for a principled approach to sensitivity analysis for bias amplification in the presence of unmeasured confounding.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis

Researchers increasingly use meta-analysis to synthesize the results of several studies in order to estimate a common effect. When the outcome variable is continuous, standard meta-analytic approaches assume that the primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome. However, when the outcome is skewed, authors sometimes summarize the data by reporting the sample median and one or both of (i) the minimum and maximum values and (ii) the first and third quartiles, but do not report the mean or standard deviation. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several methods have been developed to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the reported summary data. A major limitation of these widely used methods is that they assume that the outcome distribution is normal, which is unlikely to be tenable for studies reporting medians. We propose two novel approaches to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation when data are suspected to be non-normal. Our simulation results and empirical assessments show that the proposed methods often perform better than the existing methods when applied to non-normal data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Two-sample aggregate data meta-analysis of medians

We consider the problem of meta-analyzing two-group studies that report the median of the outcome. Often, these studies are excluded from meta-analysis because there are no well-established statistical methods to pool the difference of medians. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several authors have recently proposed methods to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the median, sample size, and several commonly reported measures of spread. Researchers frequently apply these methods to estimate the difference of means and its variance for each primary study and pool the difference of means using inverse variance weighting. In this work, we develop several methods to directly meta-analyze the difference of medians. We conduct a simulation study evaluating the performance of the proposed median-based methods and the competing transformation-based methods. The simulation results show that the median-based methods outperform the transformation-based methods when meta-analyzing studies that report the median of the outcome, especially when the outcome is skewed. Moreover, we illustrate the various methods on a real-life data set.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

One-sample aggregate data meta-analysis of medians

An aggregate data meta-analysis is a statistical method that pools the summary statistics of several selected studies to estimate the outcome of interest. When considering a continuous outcome, typically each study must report the same measure of the outcome variable and its spread (e.g., the sample mean and its standard error). However, some studies may instead report the median along with various measures of spread. Recently, the task of incorporating medians in meta-analysis has been achieved by estimating the sample mean and its standard error from each study that reports a median in order to meta-analyze the means. In this paper, we propose two alternative approaches to meta-analyze data that instead rely on medians. We systematically compare these approaches via simulation study to each other and to methods that transform the study-specific medians and spread into sample means and their standard errors. We demonstrate that the proposed median-based approaches perform better than the transformation-based approaches, especially when applied to skewed data and data with high inter-study variance. In addition, when meta-analyzing data that consists of medians, we show that the median-based approaches perform considerably better than or comparably to the best-case scenario for a transformation approach: conducting a meta-analysis using the actual sample mean and standard error of the mean of each study. Finally, we illustrate these approaches in a meta-analysis of patient delay in tuberculosis diagnosis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access