Estimation methods for marginal and association parameters for longitudinal binary data with nonignorable missing observations
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
In longitudinal studies, missing observations occur commonly. It has been well known that biased results could be produced if missingness is not properly handled in the analysis. Authors have developed many methods with the focus on either incomplete response or missing covariate observations, but rarely on both. The complexity of modeling and computational difficulty would be the major challenges in handling missingness in both response and covariate variables. In this paper, we develop methods using the pairwise likelihood formulation to handle longitudinal binary data with missing observations present in both response and covariate variables. We propose a unified framework to accommodate various types of missing data patterns. We evaluate the performance of the methods empirically under a variety of circumstances. In particular, we investigate issues on efficiency and robustness. We analyze longitudinal data from the National Population Health Study with the use of our methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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