MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019366647 · doi:10.1177/0962280213503924

Robust inference for mixed censored and binary response models with missing covariates

2013· article· en· W2019366647 on OpenAlexaff
Angshuman Sarkar, Kalyan Das, Sanjoy K. Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateEstimatorOutlierInferenceComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodMissing dataEconometricsStatisticsM-estimatorRobust statisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biomedical and epidemiological studies, often outcomes obtained are of mixed discrete and continuous in nature. Furthermore, due to some technical inconvenience or else, continuous responses are censored and also a few covariates cease to be observed completely. In this paper, we develop a model to tackle these complex situations. Our methodology is developed in a more general framework and provides a full-scale robust analysis of such complex models. The proposed robust maximum likelihood estimators of the model parameters are resistant to potential outliers in the data. We discuss the asymptotic properties of the robust estimators. To avoid computational difficulties involving irreducibly high-dimensional integrals, we propose a Monte Carlo method based on the Metropolis algorithm for approximating the robust maximum likelihood estimators. We study the empirical properties of these estimators in simulations. We also illustrate the proposed robust method using clustered data on blood sugar content from a clinical trial of individuals who were investigated for diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.414
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207