Pseudo-likelihood methods for longitudinal binary data with non-ignorable missing responses and covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider longitudinal studies in which the outcome to be measured over time is binary, and the covariates of interest are categorical. In longitudinal studies it is common for the outcomes and any time-varying covariates to be missing due to missed study visits, resulting in non-monotone patterns of missingness. Moreover, the reasons for missed visits may be related to the specific values of the response and/or covariates that should have been obtained, i.e. missingness is non-ignorable. With non-monotone non-ignorable missing response and covariate data, a full likelihood approach is quite complicated, and maximum likelihood estimation can be computationally prohibitive when there are many occasions of follow-up. Furthermore, the full likelihood must be correctly specified to obtain consistent parameter estimates. We propose a pseudo-likelihood method for jointly estimating the covariate effects on the marginal probabilities of the outcomes and the parameters of the missing data mechanism. The pseudo-likelihood requires specification of the marginal distributions of the missingness indicator, outcome, and possibly missing covariates at each occasions, but avoids making assumptions about the joint distribution of the data at two or more occasions. Thus, the proposed method can be considered semi-parametric. The proposed method is an extension of the pseudo-likelihood approach in Troxel et al. to handle binary responses and possibly missing time-varying covariates. The method is illustrated using data from the Six Cities study, a longitudinal study of the health effects of air pollution.
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 | 0.046 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".