Covariate-adjusted confidence interval for the intraclass correlation coefficient
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A crucial step in designing a new study is to estimate the required sample size. For a design involving cluster sampling, the appropriate sample size depends on the so-called design effect, which is a function of the average cluster size and the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). It is well-known that under the framework of hierarchical and generalized linear models, a reduction in residual error may be achieved by including risk factors as covariates. In this paper we show that the covariate design, indicating whether the covariates are measured at the cluster level or at the within-cluster subject level affects the estimation of the ICC, and hence the design effect. Therefore, the distinction between these two types of covariates should be made at the design stage. In this paper we use the nested-bootstrap method to assess the accuracy of the estimated ICC for continuous and binary response variables under different covariate structures. The codes of two SAS macros are made available by the authors for interested readers to facilitate the construction of confidence intervals for the ICC. Moreover, using Monte Carlo simulations we evaluate the relative efficiency of the estimators and evaluate the accuracy of the coverage probabilities of a 95% confidence interval on the population ICC. The methodology is illustrated using a published data set of blood pressure measurements taken on family members.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it