Bayesian adjustment for covariate measurement errors: A flexible parametric approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most epidemiological investigations, the study units are people, the outcome variable (or the response) is a health-related event, and the explanatory variables are usually environmental and/or socio-demographic factors. The fundamental task in such investigations is to quantify the association between the explanatory variables (covariates/exposures) and the outcome variable through a suitable regression model. The accuracy of such quantification depends on how precisely the relevant covariates are measured. In many instances, we cannot measure some of the covariates accurately. Rather, we can measure noisy (mismeasured) versions of them. In statistical terminology, mismeasurement in continuous covariates is known as measurement errors or errors-in-variables. Regression analyses based on mismeasured covariates lead to biased inference about the true underlying response-covariate associations. In this paper, we suggest a flexible parametric approach for avoiding this bias when estimating the response-covariate relationship through a logistic regression model. More specifically, we consider the flexible generalized skew-normal and the flexible generalized skew-t distributions for modeling the unobserved true exposure. For inference and computational purposes, we use Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigate the performance of the proposed flexible parametric approach in comparison with a common flexible parametric approach through extensive simulation studies. We also compare the proposed method with the competing flexible parametric method on a real-life data set. Though emphasis is put on the logistic regression model, the proposed method is unified and is applicable to the other generalized linear models, and to other types of non-linear regression models as well.
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 | 0.035 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".