MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085459152 · doi:10.1214/09-ba419

Prediction of pregnancy: a joint model for longitudinal and binary data

2009· article· en· W2085459152 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie Horrocks, M.J. van den Heuvel

Bibliographic record

VenueBayesian Analysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research Program
KeywordsPopulationLinear modelBayesian probabilityPregnancyGeneralized linear modelRandom effects modelStatisticsLongitudinal studyBinary dataJoint (building)Computer scienceBinary numberMathematicsMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of predicting the achievement of successful pregnancy, in a population of women undergoing treatment for infertility, based on longitudinal measurements of adhesiveness of certain blood lymphocytes. A goal of the analysis is to provide, for each woman, an estimated probability of becoming pregnant. We discuss various existing approaches, including multiple t-tests, mixed models, discriminant analysis and two-stage models. We use a joint model developed by Wange et al. (2000), consisting of a linear mixed effects model for the longitudinal data and a generalized linear model (glm) for the primary endpoint, (here a binary indicator of successful pregnancy). The joint longitudinal/glm model is analogous to the popular joint models for longitudinal and survival data. We estimate the parameters using Bayesian methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBayesian AnalysisSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207