MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Median Regression Models for Longitudinal Data with Dropouts

2008· article· en· W2056519252 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsEstimatorRegressionDropout (neural networks)Regression analysisConsistency (knowledge bases)Regression diagnosticMathematicsRegression toward the meanLinear regressionLongitudinal dataComputer sciencePolynomial regressionData miningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Recently, median regression models have received increasing attention. When continuous responses follow a distribution that is quite different from a normal distribution, usual mean regression models may fail to produce efficient estimators whereas median regression models may perform satisfactorily. In this article, we discuss using median regression models to deal with longitudinal data with dropouts. Weighted estimating equations are proposed to estimate the median regression parameters for incomplete longitudinal data, where the weights are determined by modeling the dropout process. Consistency and the asymptotic distribution of the resultant estimators are established. The proposed method is used to analyze a longitudinal data set arising from a controlled trial of HIV disease (Volberding et al., 1990, The New England Journal of Medicine 322, 941-949). Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the proposed method under various situations. An extension to estimation of the association parameters is outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.053 · 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