A Monte Carlo simulation study comparing linear regression, beta regression, variable-dispersion beta regression and fractional logit regression at recovering average difference measures in a two sample design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, response variables are often encountered which have bounded support on the open unit interval--(0,1). Traditionally, researchers have attempted to estimate covariate effects on these types of response data using linear regression. Alternative modelling strategies may include: beta regression, variable-dispersion beta regression, and fractional logit regression models. This study employs a Monte Carlo simulation design to compare the statistical properties of the linear regression model to that of the more novel beta regression, variable-dispersion beta regression, and fractional logit regression models. METHODS: In the Monte Carlo experiment we assume a simple two sample design. We assume observations are realizations of independent draws from their respective probability models. The randomly simulated draws from the various probability models are chosen to emulate average proportion/percentage/rate differences of pre-specified magnitudes. Following simulation of the experimental data we estimate average proportion/percentage/rate differences. We compare the estimators in terms of bias, variance, type-1 error and power. Estimates of Monte Carlo error associated with these quantities are provided. RESULTS: If response data are beta distributed with constant dispersion parameters across the two samples, then all models are unbiased and have reasonable type-1 error rates and power profiles. If the response data in the two samples have different dispersion parameters, then the simple beta regression model is biased. When the sample size is small (N0 = N1 = 25) linear regression has superior type-1 error rates compared to the other models. Small sample type-1 error rates can be improved in beta regression models using bias correction/reduction methods. In the power experiments, variable-dispersion beta regression and fractional logit regression models have slightly elevated power compared to linear regression models. Similar results were observed if the response data are generated from a discrete multinomial distribution with support on (0,1). CONCLUSIONS: The linear regression model, the variable-dispersion beta regression model and the fractional logit regression model all perform well across the simulation experiments under consideration. When employing beta regression to estimate covariate effects on (0,1) response data, researchers should ensure their dispersion sub-model is properly specified, else inferential errors could arise.
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 | 0.051 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".