Conditional Logistic Regression With Longitudinal Follow-up and Individual-Level Random Coefficients: A Stable and Efficient Two-Step Estimation Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of data generated by animal habitat selection studies, by family studies of genetic diseases, or by longitudinal follow-up of households often involves fitting a mixed conditional logistic regression model to longitudinal data composed of clusters of matched case-control strata. The estimation of model parameters by maximum likelihood is especially difficult when the number of cases per stratum is greater than one. In this case, the denominator of each cluster contribution to the conditional likelihood involves a complex integral in high dimension, which leads to convergence problems in the numerical maximization. In this article we show how these computational complexities can be bypassed using a global two-step analysis for nonlinear mixed effects models. The first step estimates the cluster-specific parameters and can be achieved with standard statistical methods and software based on maximum likelihood for independent data. The second step uses the EM-algorithm in conjunction with conditional restricted maximum likelihood to estimate the population parameters. We use simulations to demonstrate that the method works well when the analysis is based on a large number of strata per cluster, as in many ecological studies. We apply the proposed two-step approach to evaluate habitat selection by pairs of bison roaming freely in their natural environment. This article has supplementary material online.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".