Joint Modeling of Zero-Inflated Panel Count and Severity Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Panel counts are often encountered in longitudinal, such as diary, studies where individuals are followed over time and the number of events occurring in time intervals, or panels, is recorded. This article develops methods for situations where, in addition to the counts of events, a mark, denoting a measure of severity of the events, is recorded. In many situations there is an association between the panel counts and their marks. This is the case for our motivating application that studies the effect of two hormone therapy treatments in reducing counts and severities of vasomotor symptoms in women after hysterectomy/ovariectomy. We model the event counts and their severities jointly through the use of shared random effects. We also compare, through simulation, the power of testing for the treatment effect based on such joint modeling and an alternative scoring approach, which is commonly employed. The scoring approach analyzes the compound outcome of counts times weighted severity. We discuss this approach and quantify challenges which may arise in isolating the treatment effect when such a scoring approach is used. We also show that the power of detecting a treatment effect is higher when using the joint model than analysis using the scoring approach. Inference is performed via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 it