Mixture distributions in multi‐state modelling: Some considerations in a study of psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many studies, interest lies in determining whether members of the study population will undergo a particular event of interest. Such scenarios are often termed 'mover-stayer' scenarios, and interest lies in modelling two sub-populations of 'movers' (those who have a propensity to undergo the event of interest) and 'stayers' (those who do not). In general, mover-stayer scenarios within data sets are accounted for through the use of mixture distributions, and in this paper, we investigate the use of various random effects distributions for this purpose. Using data from the University of Toronto psoriatic arthritis clinic, we present a multi-state model to describe the progression of clinical damage in hand joints of patients with psoriatic arthritis. We consider the use of mover-stayer gamma, inverse Gaussian and compound Poisson distributions to account for both the correlation amongst joint locations and the possible mover-stayer situation with regard to clinical hand joint damage. We compare the fits obtained from these models and discuss the extent to which a mover-stayer scenario exists in these data. Furthermore, we fit a mover-stayer model that allows a dependence of the probability of a patient being a stayer on a patient-level explanatory variable.
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 | 0.034 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".