MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regression Analysis with a Misclassified Covariate from a Current Status Observation Scheme

2009· article· en· W1964870095 on OpenAlexafffund
Leilei Zeng, Richard J. Cook, Theodore E. Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WaterlooSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCovariateCensoring (clinical trials)StatisticsRegression analysisNonparametric statisticsSeroconversionProportional hazards modelEstimatorEconometricsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naive use of misclassified covariates leads to inconsistent estimators of covariate effects in regression models. A variety of methods have been proposed to address this problem including likelihood, pseudo-likelihood, estimating equation methods, and Bayesian methods, with all of these methods typically requiring either internal or external validation samples or replication studies. We consider a problem arising from a series of orthopedic studies in which interest lies in examining the effect of a short-term serological response and other covariates on the risk of developing a longer term thrombotic condition called deep vein thrombosis. The serological response is an indicator of whether the patient developed antibodies following exposure to an antithrombotic drug, but the seroconversion status of patients is only available at the time of a blood sample taken upon the discharge from hospital. The seroconversion time is therefore subject to a current status observation scheme, or Case I interval censoring, and subjects tested before seroconversion are misclassified as nonseroconverters. We develop a likelihood-based approach for fitting regression models that accounts for misclassification of the seroconversion status due to early testing using parametric and nonparametric estimates of the seroconversion time distribution. The method is shown to reduce the bias resulting from naive analyses in simulation studies and an application to the data from the orthopedic studies provides further illustration.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.746
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207