Longitudinal data analysis using the conditional empirical likelihood method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies a new approach to longitudinal data analysis using the conditional empirical likelihood (CEL) method within the framework of marginal models. The possible unbalanced follow‐up visits are dealt with via stratification according to distinctive follow‐up patterns. The CEL method does not require any explicit modelling of the variance–covariance of the longitudinal outcomes. Instead, it implicitly incorporates a consistently estimated variance–covariance matrix in a nonparametric fashion. The proposed CEL estimator is connected to the generalized estimating equations (GEE) estimator, and achieves the same efficiency as the GEE estimator employing the true variance–covariance. The asymptotic distribution of the CEL estimator is derived, and simulation studies are conducted to assess the finite sample performance. Data collected from a longitudinal nutrition study are analysed as an application.The Canadian Journal of Statistics42: 404–422; 2014 © 2014 Statistical Society of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".