MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simplex Mixed‐Effects Models for Longitudinal Proportional Data

2008· article· en· W1947272822 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhenguo Qiu, Peter X.‐K. Song, Ming Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAlberta Cancer Foundation
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsRestricted maximum likelihoodGeneralized linear mixed modelLaplace's methodStatisticsQuasi-likelihoodOutlierMixed modelApplied mathematicsSimplexInferenceLikelihood functionRandom effects modelStatistical inferenceCount dataMaximum likelihoodPoisson distributionCombinatoricsComputer scienceBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Continuous proportional outcomes are collected from many practical studies, where responses are confined within the unit interval (0,1). Utilizing Barndorff‐Nielsen and Jørgensen's simplex distribution, we propose a new type of generalized linear mixed‐effects model for longitudinal proportional data, where the expected value of proportion is directly modelled through a logit function of fixed and random effects. We establish statistical inference along the lines of Breslow and Clayton's penalized quasi‐likelihood (PQL) and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) in the proposed model. We derive the PQL/REML using the high‐order multivariate Laplace approximation, which gives satisfactory estimation of the model parameters. The proposed model and inference are illustrated by simulation studies and a data example. The simulation studies conclude that the fourth order approximate PQL/REML performs satisfactorily. The data example shows that Aitchison's technique of the normal linear mixed model for logit‐transformed proportional outcomes is not robust against outliers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207