Modelling Sparse Generalized Longitudinal Observations with Latent Gaussian Processes
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
Summary In longitudinal data analysis one frequently encounters non-Gaussian data that are repeatedly collected for a sample of individuals over time. The repeated observations could be binomial, Poisson or of another discrete type or could be continuous. The timings of the repeated measurements are often sparse and irregular. We introduce a latent Gaussian process model for such data, establishing a connection to functional data analysis. The functional methods proposed are non-parametric and computationally straightforward as they do not involve a likelihood. We develop functional principal components analysis for this situation and demonstrate the prediction of individual trajectories from sparse observations. This method can handle missing data and leads to predictions of the functional principal component scores which serve as random effects in this model. These scores can then be used for further statistical analysis, such as inference, regression, discriminant analysis or clustering. We illustrate these non-parametric methods with longitudinal data on primary biliary cirrhosis and show in simulations that they are competitive in comparisons with generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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