Bayesian inference on joint models of HIV dynamics for time‐to‐event and longitudinal data with skewness and covariate measurement errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normality (symmetry) of the model random errors is a routine assumption for mixed-effects models in many longitudinal studies, but it may be unrealistically obscuring important features of subject variations. Covariates are usually introduced in the models to partially explain inter-subject variations, but some covariates such as CD4 cell count may be often measured with substantial errors. This paper formulates a class of models in general forms that considers model errors to have skew-normal distributions for a joint behavior of longitudinal dynamic processes and time-to-event process of interest. For estimating model parameters, we propose a Bayesian approach to jointly model three components (response, covariate, and time-to-event processes) linked through the random effects that characterize the underlying individual-specific longitudinal processes. We discuss in detail special cases of the model class, which are offered to jointly model HIV dynamic response in the presence of CD4 covariate process with measurement errors and time to decrease in CD4/CD8 ratio, to provide a tool to assess antiretroviral treatment and to monitor disease progression. We illustrate the proposed methods using the data from a clinical trial study of HIV treatment. The findings from this research suggest that the joint models with a skew-normal distribution may provide more reliable and robust results if the data exhibit skewness, and particularly the results may be important for HIV/AIDS studies in providing quantitative guidance to better understand the virologic responses to antiretroviral treatment.
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".