Pattern‐Mixture Zero‐Inflated Mixed Models for Longitudinal Unbalanced Count Data with Excessive Zeros
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of longitudinal data with excessive zeros has gained increasing attention in recent years; however, current approaches to the analysis of longitudinal data with excessive zeros have primarily focused on balanced data. Dropouts are common in longitudinal studies; therefore, the analysis of the resulting unbalanced data is complicated by the missing mechanism. Our study is motivated by the analysis of longitudinal skin cancer count data presented by Greenberg, Baron, Stukel, Stevens, Mandel, Spencer, Elias, Lowe, Nierenberg, Bayrd, Vance, Freeman, Clendenning, Kwan, and the Skin Cancer Prevention Study Group[New England Journal of Medicine 323, 789-795]. The data consist of a large number of zero responses (83% of the observations) as well as a substantial amount of dropout (about 52% of the observations). To account for both excessive zeros and dropout patterns, we propose a pattern-mixture zero-inflated model with compound Poisson random effects for the unbalanced longitudinal skin cancer data. We also incorporate an autoregressive of order 1 correlation structure in the model to capture longitudinal correlation of the count responses. A quasi-likelihood approach has been developed in the estimation of our model. We illustrated the method with analysis of the longitudinal skin cancer data.
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 | 0.049 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".