Principal component-based weighted indices and a framework to evaluate indices: Results from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 1996 to 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producing indices composed of multiple input variables has been embedded in some data processing and analytical methods. We aim to test the feasibility of creating data-driven indices by aggregating input variables according to principal component analysis (PCA) loadings. To validate the significance of both the theory-based and data-driven indices, we propose principles to review innovative indices. We generated weighted indices with the variables obtained in the first years of the two-year panels in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey initiated between 1996 and 2011. Variables were weighted according to PCA loadings and summed. The statistical significance and residual deviance of each index to predict mortality in the second years was extracted from the results of discrete-time survival analyses. There were 237,832 surviving the first years of panels, represented 4.5 billion civilians in the United States, of which 0.62% (95% CI = 0.58% to 0.66%) died in the second years of the panels. Of all 134,689 weighted indices, there were 40,803 significantly predicting mortality in the second years with or without the adjustment of age, sex and races. The significant indices in the both models could at most lead to 10,200 years of academic tenure for individual researchers publishing four indices per year or 618.2 years of publishing for journals with annual volume of 66 articles. In conclusion, if aggregating information based on PCA loadings, there can be a large number of significant innovative indices composing input variables of various predictive powers. To justify the large quantities of innovative indices, we propose a reporting and review framework for novel indices based on the objectives to create indices, variable weighting, related outcomes and database characteristics. The indices selected by this framework could lead to a new genre of publications focusing on meaningful aggregation of information.
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 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".