Adjustment for Variable Adherence Under Hierarchical Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable adherence to assigned conditions is common in randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: A generalized modeling framework under longitudinal data structures is proposed for regression estimation of the causal effect of variable adherence on outcome, with emphasis upon adjustment for unobserved confounders. RESEARCH DESIGN: A nonlinear, nonparametric random-coefficients modeling approach is described. Estimates of local average treatment effects among compliers can be obtained simultaneously for all assigned conditions to which participants are randomly assigned within the trial. Two techniques are combined to address time-varying and time-invariant unobserved confounding-residual inclusion and nonparametric random-coefficients modeling. Together these yield a compound, 2-stage residual inclusion, instrumental variables model. SUBJECTS: The proposed method is illustrated through a set of simulation studies to examine small-sample bias and in application to neurocognitive outcome data from a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in sleep medicine for continuous positive airway pressure treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. RESULTS: Results of simulation studies indicate that, relative to a standard comparator, the proposed estimator reduces bias in estimates of the causal effect of variable adherence. Bias reductions were greatest at higher levels of residual variance and when confounders were time varying. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed modeling framework is flexible in the distributions of outcomes that can be modeled, applicable to repeated measures longitudinal structures, and provides effective reduction of bias due to unobserved confounders.
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 | 0.072 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".