Longitudinal data subject to irregular observation: A review of methods with a focus on visit processes, assumptions, and study design
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.
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 | 0.043 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".