MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020371156 · doi:10.1214/08-aos627

Covariate-adjusted nonlinear regression

2009· article· en· W2020371156 on OpenAlexaff
Xia Cui, Wensheng Guo, Lu Lin, Lixing Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Cancer InstituteHong Kong Baptist UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsCovariateEmpirical likelihoodStatisticsEstimatorCoverage probabilityAsymptotic distributionConsistency (knowledge bases)Nonlinear regressionNuisance parameterConfidence intervalEconometricsDelta methodRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a covariate-adjusted nonlinear regression model. In this model, both the response and predictors can only be observed after being distorted by some multiplicative factors. Because of nonlinearity, existing methods for the linear setting cannot be directly employed. To attack this problem, we propose estimating the distorting functions by nonparametrically regressing the predictors and response on the distorting covariate; then, nonlinear least squares estimators for the parameters are obtained using the estimated response and predictors. Root n-consistency and asymptotic normality are established. However, the limiting variance has a very complex structure with several unknown components, and confidence regions based on normal approximation are not efficient. Empirical likelihood-based confidence regions are proposed, and their accuracy is also verified due to its self-scale invariance. Furthermore, unlike the common results derived from the profile methods, even when plug-in estimates are used for the infinite-dimensional nuisance parameters (distorting functions), the limit of empirical likelihood ratio is still chi-squared distributed. This property eases the construction of the empirical likelihood-based confidence regions. A simulation study is carried out to assess the finite sample performance of the proposed estimators and confidence regions. We apply our method to study the relationship between glomerular filtration rate and serum creatinine.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.067 · 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

Citations105
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207