You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was trying to understand how sample overlap correction is implemented in METAL, as described here. The full method description from Sebanti Sengupta is detailed here and here and it seems to match the implementation from Daniel Taliun here:
Following the notation from Sebanti Sengupta, suppose we have two studies with n_1 = 400 and n_2 = 900 samples with n_{12} = 100 overlapping samples and define
While following the formulas from Sebanti Sengupta and Daniel Taliun it would be
n_1 + n_2 - n_{12} = 400 + 900 - 100 = 1200
It seems to me as if the mathematics behind METAL's meta analysis with sample overlap correction is incorrect and, while claiming to follow the optimal weights in Lin and Sullivan 2009, it does something other than that. In particular, while METAL does not perform sample overlap correction for inverse variance based meta-analysis, it does not seem to me that the sample size based meta-analysis implementation computes a weighted average of the Z/sqrt(N)'s statistics. Should METAL be avoided when using sample overlap correction?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I was trying to understand how sample overlap correction is implemented in METAL, as described here. The full method description from Sebanti Sengupta is detailed here and here and it seems to match the implementation from Daniel Taliun here:
Following the notation from Sebanti Sengupta, suppose we have two studies with
n_1 = 400
andn_2 = 900
samples withn_{12} = 100
overlapping samples and defineThen Ω as the covariance matrix for the β's or the
Z/sqrt(N)
's, as defined in Lin and Sullivan 2009, would be equal toThe optimal weights for the meta-analysis, following Lin and Sullivan 2009, would be
While following the formulas from Sebanti Sengupta and Daniel Taliun they would be
The effective sample size, following Lin and Sullivan 2009, would be
While following the formulas from Sebanti Sengupta and Daniel Taliun it would be
It seems to me as if the mathematics behind METAL's meta analysis with sample overlap correction is incorrect and, while claiming to follow the optimal weights in Lin and Sullivan 2009, it does something other than that. In particular, while METAL does not perform sample overlap correction for inverse variance based meta-analysis, it does not seem to me that the sample size based meta-analysis implementation computes a weighted average of the
Z/sqrt(N)
's statistics. Should METAL be avoided when using sample overlap correction?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: