Comparing the Effects of Continuous and Discrete Covariate Mismeasurement, with Emphasis on the Dichotomization of Mismeasured Predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that imprecision in the measurement of predictor variables typically leads to bias in estimated regression coefficients. We compare the bias induced by measurement error in a continuous predictor with that induced by misclassification of a binary predictor in the contexts of linear and logistic regression. To make the comparison fair, we consider misclassification probabilities for a binary predictor that correspond to dichotomizing an imprecise continuous predictor in lieu of its precise counterpart. On this basis, nondifferential binary misclassification is seen to yield more bias than nondifferential continuous measurement error. However, it is known that differential misclassification results if a binary predictor is actually formed by dichotomizing a continuous predictor subject to nondifferential measurement error. When the postulated model linking the response and precise continuous predictor is correct, this differential misclassification is found to yield less bias than continuous measurement error, in contrast with nondifferential misclassification, i.e., dichotomization reduces the bias due to mismeasurement. This finding, however, is sensitive to the form of the underlying relationship between the response and the continuous predictor. In particular, we give a scenario where dichotomization involves a trade-off between model fit and misclassification bias. We also examine how the bias depends on the choice of threshold in the dichotomization process and on the correlation between the imprecise predictor and a second precise predictor.
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 | 0.114 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".