A comparison of methods for estimating the temporal change in a continuous variable: Example of HbA1c in patients with diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the more complex technique, functional principal component analysis (FPCA), to simpler methods of estimating values of sparse and irregularly spaced continuous variables at given time points in longitudinal data using a diabetic patient cohort from UK primary care. METHODS: The setting for this study is the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a UK general practice research database. For 16,034 diabetic patients identified in CPRD, with at least 2 measures in a 30-month period, HbA1c was estimated after temporarily omitting (i) the final and (ii) middle known values using linear interpolation, simple linear regression, arithmetic mean, random effects, and FPCA. Performance of each method was assessed using mean prediction error. The influence on predictive accuracy of (1) more homogeneous populations and (2) number and range of known HbA1c values was explored. RESULTS: When estimating the last observation, the predictive accuracy of FPCA was highest with over half of predicted values within 0.4 units, equivalent to laboratory measurement error. Predictive accuracy improved when estimating the middle observation with almost 60% predicted values within 0.4 units for FPCA. These results were marginally better than that achieved by simpler approaches, such as last-occurrence-carried-forward linear interpolation. This pattern persisted with more homogeneous populations as well as when variability in HbA1c measures coupled with frequency of data points were considered. CONCLUSIONS: When estimating change from baseline to prespecified time points in electronic medical records data, a marginal benefit to using the more complex modelling approach of FPCA exists over more traditional 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.
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 | 0.048 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".