Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multilevel data occur frequently in health services, population and public health, and epidemiologic research. In such research, binary outcomes are common. Multilevel logistic regression models allow one to account for the clustering of subjects within clusters of higher-level units when estimating the effect of subject and cluster characteristics on subject outcomes. A search of the PubMed database demonstrated that the use of multilevel or hierarchical regression models is increasing rapidly. However, our impression is that many analysts simply use multilevel regression models to account for the nuisance of within-cluster homogeneity that is induced by clustering. In this article, we describe a suite of analyses that can complement the fitting of multilevel logistic regression models. These ancillary analyses permit analysts to estimate the marginal or population-average effect of covariates measured at the subject and cluster level, in contrast to the within-cluster or cluster-specific effects arising from the original multilevel logistic regression model. We describe the interval odds ratio and the proportion of opposed odds ratios, which are summary measures of effect for cluster-level covariates. We describe the variance partition coefficient and the median odds ratio which are measures of components of variance and heterogeneity in outcomes. These measures allow one to quantify the magnitude of the general contextual effect. We describe an R2 measure that allows analysts to quantify the proportion of variation explained by different multilevel logistic regression models. We illustrate the application and interpretation of these measures by analyzing mortality in patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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 | 0.028 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".