ON PSEUDO-LIKELIHOOD INFERENCE IN THE BINARY LONGITUDINAL MIXED MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binary logistic and Poisson mixed models are used to analyse over/under-dispersed proportion and count data, respectively. It is, however, well known that a full likelihood analysis for such mixed models is hampered by the need for numerical integrations. To overcome such integration problems, recently Sutradhar and Qu (On Approximate Likelihood Inference in Poisson Mixed Model. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 1998, 26, 169–186) has introduced a small variance component (for random effects) based likelihood approximation (LA) approach to estimate the parameters of the Poisson mixed models and have shown that their LA approach performs better as compared to other leading approaches. More recently, Sutradhar and Das (A Higher-Order Approximation to the Likelihood Inference in the Poisson Mixed Model. Statistics and Probability Letters 2001, 52, 59–67) further improved the LA approach of Sutradhar and Qu to accommodate larger values of the variance component. These likelihood approximation techniques developed for Poisson mixed models are however not applicable to the binary mixed models. In this paper, we propose a multivariate binary distribution based pseudo-likelihood approach for the estimation of the parameters of the binary mixed models. We, in fact, do this in a wider binary longitudinal mixed model set up, binary mixed model being a special case. More specifically, two types of binary longitudinal mixed models are considered. Under the first model, conditional on certain independent random effects, repeated binary responses are assumed to follow a Bahadur type multivariate binary distribution, so that, unconditionally, the responses in the cluster follow a longitudinal binary mixed model. Under the second model, however, the binary responses in the cluster are assumed to be conditionally independent, conditional on certain correlated random effects, so that, unconditionally, responses in the cluster also follow a binary longitudinal mixed model. It is of primary interest to estimate the regression and the variance component parameters of the binary longitudinal mixed model, longitudinal correlation parameters being nuisance. The performance of the proposed pseudo-likelihood based estimators is examined through a simulation study. A comparison is also made with a highly competitive generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach, especially for the estimation of the variance component of the random effects.
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 | 0.048 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".