Multiple imputation methods for recurrent event data with missing event category
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frequently in clinical and epidemiologic studies, the event of interest is recurrent (i.e., can occur more than once per subject). When the events are not of the same type, an analysis which accounts for the fact that events fall into different categories will often be more informative. Often, however, although event times may always be known, information through which events are categorized may potentially be missing. Complete‐case methods (whose application may require, for example, that events be censored when their category cannot be determined) are valid only when event categories are missing completely at random. This assumption is rather restrictive. The authors propose two multiple imputation methods for analyzing multiple‐category recurrent event data under the proportional means/rates model. The use of a proper or improper imputation technique distinguishes the two approaches. Both methods lead to consistent estimation of regression parameters even when the missingness of event categories depends on covariates. The authors derive the asymptotic properties of the estimators and examine their behaviour in finite samples through simulation. They illustrate their approach using data from an international study on dialysis.
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 | 0.047 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".