MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468369477

Strategies for handling normality assumptions in multi-level modeling: a case study estimating trajectories of Health Utilities Index Mark 3 scores.

2011· article· en· W2468369477 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Bernier, Yan Feng, Keiko Asakawa

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsNormalityHealth Utilities IndexIndex (typography)EconometricsMathematicsGoodness of fitNormal distributionVariance (accounting)PopulationDemographyMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsEnvironmental healthHealth related quality of life
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With longitudinal data, lifetime health statusŏ dynamics can be estimated by modeling trajectories. Health status trajectories measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) modeled as a function of age alone and also of age and socio-economic covariates revealed non-normal residuals and variance estimation problems. The possibility of transforming the HUI3 distribution to obtain residuals that approximate a normal distribution was investigated. DATA AND METHODS: The analysis is based on longitudinal data from the first six cycles of the National Population Health Survey (NPHS). The data pertain to 7,784 individuals, who, in 1994/1995, were aged 40 to 99, were living in private households, and had complete information on HUI3. A multilevel growth model was used to examine the hierarchical structure of NPHS data (repeated measurements nesting within respondents). The transformation of arcsine [2 x (HUI + 0.36) / (1 + 0.36)-1] was used to improve the distribution of the residuals at both levels and limit the conditional mean to the -0.36 to 1.00 interval. A model was estimated using socio-economic determinants. Analyses were performed with SAS and MLwiN. RESULTS: After the transformation of HUI3, the model was satisfactory and allowed for inclusion of new socio-demographic and health variables in order to estimate their impact on the health-related quality of life of aging populations. Because of the complex transformation of the arcsine model, the regression coefficients were not interpreted. Instead, the estimation results were summarized graphically.

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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.271
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.271
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.033 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207