Longitudinal data subject to irregular observation: A review of methods with a focus on visit processes, assumptions, and study design
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
When data are collected longitudinally, measurement times often vary among patients. This is of particular concern in clinic-based studies, for example retrospective chart reviews. Here, typically no two patients will share the same set of measurement times and moreover, it is likely that the timing of the measurements is associated with disease course; for example, patients may visit more often when unwell. While there are statistical methods that can help overcome the resulting bias, these make assumptions about the nature of the dependence between visit times and outcome processes, and the assumptions differ across methods. The purpose of this paper is to review the methods available with a particular focus on how the assumptions made line up with visit processes encountered in practice. Through this we show that no one method can handle all plausible visit scenarios and suggest that careful analysis of the visit process should inform the choice of analytic method for the outcomes. Moreover, there are some commonly encountered visit scenarios that are not handled well by any method, and we make recommendations with regard to study design that would minimize the chances of these problematic visit scenarios arising.
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 | 0.130 | 0.578 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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