MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133959349 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwf215

Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data Using Generalized Estimating Equations: An Orientation

2003· article· en· W2133959349 on OpenAlexafffund
James A. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGeeGeneralized estimating equationBinary dataBinary numberMultivariate statisticsSimple (philosophy)Orientation (vector space)Set (abstract data type)Longitudinal dataData setStatisticsEstimating equationsComputer scienceMathematicsMultivariate analysisApplied mathematicsAlgorithmData miningMaximum likelihoodArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The method of generalized estimating equations (GEE) is often used to analyze longitudinal and other correlated response data, particularly if responses are binary. However, few descriptions of the method are accessible to epidemiologists. In this paper, the authors use small worked examples and one real data set, involving both binary and quantitative response data, to help end-users appreciate the essence of the method. The examples are simple enough to see the behind-the-scenes calculations and the essential role of weighted observations, and they allow nonstatisticians to imagine the calculations involved when the GEE method is applied to more complex multivariate data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2,200
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207