Statistical methods for incomplete data: Some results on model misspecification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse probability weighted estimating equations and multiple imputation are two of the most studied frameworks for dealing with incomplete data in clinical and epidemiological research. We examine the limiting behaviour of estimators arising from inverse probability weighted estimating equations, augmented inverse probability weighted estimating equations and multiple imputation when the requisite auxiliary models are misspecified. We compute limiting values for settings involving binary responses and covariates and illustrate the effects of model misspecification using simulations based on data from a breast cancer clinical trial. We demonstrate that, even when both auxiliary models are misspecified, the asymptotic biases of double-robust augmented inverse probability weighted estimators are often smaller than the asymptotic biases of estimators arising from complete-case analyses, inverse probability weighting or multiple imputation. We further demonstrate that use of inverse probability weighting or multiple imputation with slightly misspecified auxiliary models can actually result in greater asymptotic bias than the use of naïve, complete case analyses. These asymptotic results are shown to be consistent with empirical results from simulation studies.
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 | 0.109 | 0.401 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".