The effect of misspecification of random effects distributions in clustered data settings with outcome‐dependent sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic epidemiologists often gather outcome-dependent samples of family data to measure within-family associations of genetic factors with disease outcomes. Generalized linear mixed models provide effective methods to estimate within-family associations but typically require parametric specification of the random effects distribution. Although misspecification of the random effects distribution often leads to little bias in estimated regression coefficients in standard, prospective clustered data settings, some recent studies suggest that such misspecification will impact parameter estimates from outcome-dependent cluster sampling designs. Using analytic results, simulation studies and fits to example data, this study examines the effect of misspecification of random effects distributions on parameter estimates in clustered data settings with outcome-dependent sampling. We show that the effects are consistent with results from prospective cluster sampling settings. In particular, ascertainment corrected mixed model methods that assume normally distributed random intercepts and conditional likelihood approaches provide accurate estimates of within-family covariate effects even under a misspecified random effects distribution.
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 | 0.274 | 0.669 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".