Estimation of Dose-Response Functions for Longitudinal Data
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
In a longitudinal study of dose-response, the presence of confounding or non-compliance compromises the estimation of the true effect of a treatment. Standard regression methods cannot remove the bias introduced by patient-selected treatment level, that is, they do not permit the estimation of the causal effect of dose. Using an approach based on the Generalized Propensity Score (GPS), a generalization of the classical, binary treatment propensity score, it is possible to construct a balancing score that provides a more meaningful estimation procedure for the true (unconfounded) effect of dose. Previously, the GPS has been applied only in a single interval setting. In this paper, we extend the GPS methodology to the longitudinal setting. The methodology is applied to simulated data and two real data sets; first, we study the Riesby depression data, and secondly we present analysis of a recent study, the Monitored Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (MOTAS), which investigated the dose-response relationship in an ophthalmological setting between occlusion and improvement in visual acuity. The MOTAS study was revolutionary as it was the first to accurately measure occlusion dose received by the child.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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