MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164186633 · doi:10.1177/0962280211414620

A likelihood-based two-part marginal model for longitudinal semicontinuous data

2011· article· en· W2164186633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Su, Brian D. M. Tom, Vernon T. Farewell

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMarginal modelMarginal structural modelMarginal distributionMarginal likelihoodCovariateRandom effects modelMixed modelRobustness (evolution)StatisticsComputer scienceStatistical modelPopulationEconometricsMathematicsMaximum likelihoodRegression analysisRandom variableMedicineObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-part models are an attractive approach for analysing longitudinal semicontinuous data consisting of a mixture of true zeros and continuously distributed positive values. When the population-averaged (marginal) covariate effects are of interest, two-part models that provide straightforward interpretation of the marginal effects are desirable. Presently, the only available approaches for fitting two-part marginal models to longitudinal semicontinuous data are computationally difficult to implement. Therefore, there exists a need to develop two-part marginal models that can be easily implemented in practice. We propose a fully likelihood-based two-part marginal model that satisfies this need by using the bridge distribution for the random effect in the binary part of an underlying two-part mixed model; and its maximum likelihood estimation can be routinely implemented via standard statistical software such as the SAS NLMIXED procedure. We illustrate the usage of this new model by investigating the marginal effects of pre-specified genetic markers on physical functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire, in a cohort of psoriatic arthritis patients from the University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic. An added benefit of our proposed marginal model when compared to a two-part mixed model is the robustness in regression parameter estimation when departure from the true random effects structure occurs. This is demonstrated through simulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.601
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.023 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207