Estimating linear regression models in the presence of a censored independent variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the impact of a censored independent variable, after adjusting for a second independent variable, when estimating regression coefficients using "naïve" ordinary least squares (OLS), "partial" OLS and full-likelihood models. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine the bias associated with all three regression methods. We demonstrated that substantial bias was introduced in the estimation of the regression coefficient associated with the variable subject to a ceiling effect when naïve OLS regression was used. Furthermore, minor bias was transmitted to the estimation of the regression coefficient associated with the second independent variable. High correlation between the two independent variables improved estimation of the censored variable's coefficient at the expense of estimation of the other coefficient. The use of "partial" OLS and maximum-likelihood estimation were shown to result in, at most, negligible bias in estimation. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the full-likelihood method was robust under mis-specification of the joint distribution of the independent random variables. Lastly, we provided an empirical example using National Population Health Survey (NPHS) data to demonstrate the practical implications of our main findings and the simple methods available to circumvent the bias identified in the Monte Carlo simulations. Our results suggest that researchers need to be aware of the bias associated with the use of naïve ordinary least-squares estimation when estimating regression models in which at least one independent variable is subject to a ceiling effect.
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 | 0.061 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".