Avoiding Inferential Errors in Public Health Research: The Statistical Modelling of Physical Activity Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A review of the health behavior literature on the statistical modeling of days of physical activity (PA) indicates that in many instances linear regression models have been used. It is inappropriate statistically to model a count dependent variable such as days of physical activity with Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). Many count variables have skewed distributions, and, also, have a preponderance of zeroes. Count variables should not be treated as continuous and unbounded. If OLS is used, estimations of the regression will frequently turn out to be inefficient, inconsistent and biased, and such outcomes could well have incorrect impacts on health programs and policies. Methods: We considered three statistical methods for modelling the distribution of days of PA data for respondents in the 2013 Health Information Trends Survey (HINTS). The three regression models analyzed were: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Negative Binomial (NBRM), and Zero-inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB). We used the exact same predictor variables in the three models. Our results illustrate the differences in the results. Results: Our analyses of the PA data demonstrated that the ZINB model fits the observed PA data better than either the OLS or the NBRM models. The coefficients and standard errors differed in the zero-inflated count models from the other models. For instance, the ZINB coefficient for the association between income and PA behavior was not statistically significant (p>0.05), whereas in the NBRM and in the OLS models, it was statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusions: The inappropriate use of regression models could well lead to wrong statistical inferences. Our analyses of the number of days of moderate PA demonstrated that the ZINB count model fits the observed PA data much better than the OLS model and the NBRM.
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 | 0.405 | 0.742 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".