Methods to adjust for misclassification in the quantiles for the generalized linear model with measurement error in continuous exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many biomedical studies, covariates of interest may be measured with errors. However, frequently in a regression analysis, the quantiles of the exposure variable are often used as the covariates in the regression analysis. Because of measurement errors in the continuous exposure variable, there could be misclassification in the quantiles for the exposure variable. Misclassification in the quantiles could lead to bias estimation in the association between the exposure variable and the outcome variable. Adjustment for misclassification will be challenging when the gold standard variables are not available. In this paper, we develop two regression calibration estimators to reduce bias in effect estimation. The first estimator is normal likelihood-based. The second estimator is linearization-based, and it provides a simple and practical correction. Finite sample performance is examined via a simulation study. We apply the methods to a four-arm randomized clinical trial that tested exercise and weight loss interventions in women aged 50-75 years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".