Application of a Generalized Random Effects Regression Model for Cluster-correlated Longitudinal Data to a School-based Smoking Prevention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cluster-randomized trials, groups of subjects (clusters) are assigned to treatments, whereas observations are taken on the individual subjects. Since observations on subjects in the same cluster are typically more similar than observations from different clusters, analyses of such data must take intracluster correlation into account rather than assuming independence among all observations. Random effects models are useful for this purpose. The problem becomes more complicated if, in addition, repeated observations are taken on subjects over time. This introduces intraindividual correlation, which is typical for longitudinal studies. The Waterloo Smoking Prevention Project, study 3 (WSPP3), 1989-1996, is a study giving rise to cluster-correlated longitudinal data, where schools were randomized to either a smoking intervention program or to a control condition. Smoking status was assessed on grade 6 students in these schools, with annual follow-up observations throughout elementary and high school years. The authors illustrate the use of a generalized random effects model for analyzing this type of data. This model obtains appropriate estimates and standard errors for both individual-level covariates and those at the level of the cluster.
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 | 0.038 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".