An estimated‐score approach for dealing with missing covariate data in matched case–control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Matched case–control designs are commonly used in epidemiological studies for estimating the effect of exposure variables on the risk of a disease by controlling the effect of confounding variables. Due to retrospective nature of the study, information on a covariate could be missing for some subjects. A straightforward application of the conditional logistic likelihood for analyzing matched case–control data with the partially missing covariate may yield inefficient estimators of the parameters. A robust method has been proposed to handle this problem using an estimated conditional score approach when the missingness mechanism does not depend on the disease status. Within the conditional logistic likelihood framework, an empirical procedure is used to estimate the odds of the disease for the subjects with missing covariate values. The asymptotic distribution and the asymptotic variance of the estimator when the matching variables and the completely observed covariates are categorical. The finite sample performance of the proposed estimator is assessed through a simulation study. Finally, the proposed method has been applied to analyze two matched case–control studies. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 680–697; 2010 © 2010 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".