Dynamic classification using credible intervals in longitudinal discriminant analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently developed methods of longitudinal discriminant analysis allow for classification of subjects into prespecified prognostic groups using longitudinal history of both continuous and discrete biomarkers. The classification uses Bayesian estimates of the group membership probabilities for each prognostic group. These estimates are derived from a multivariate generalised linear mixed model of the biomarker's longitudinal evolution in each of the groups and can be updated each time new data is available for a patient, providing a dynamic (over time) allocation scheme. However, the precision of the estimated group probabilities differs for each patient and also over time. This precision can be assessed by looking at credible intervals for the group membership probabilities. In this paper, we propose a new allocation rule that incorporates credible intervals for use in context of a dynamic longitudinal discriminant analysis and show that this can decrease the number of false positives in a prognostic test, improving the positive predictive value. We also establish that by leaving some patients unclassified for a certain period, the classification accuracy of those patients who are classified can be improved, giving increased confidence to clinicians in their decision making. Finally, we show that determining a stopping rule dynamically can be more accurate than specifying a set time point at which to decide on a patient's status. We illustrate our methodology using data from patients with epilepsy and show how patients who fail to achieve adequate seizure control are more accurately identified using credible intervals compared to existing 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 | 0.051 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".