Three‐part joint modeling methods for complex functional data mixed with zero‐and‐one–inflated proportions and zero‐inflated continuous outcomes with skewness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We take a functional data approach to longitudinal studies with complex bivariate outcomes. This work is motivated by data from a physical activity study that measured 2 responses over time in 5-minute intervals. One response is the proportion of time active in each interval, a continuous proportions with excess zeros and ones. The other response, energy expenditure rate in the interval, is a continuous variable with excess zeros and skewness. This outcome is complex because there are 3 possible activity patterns in each interval (inactive, partially active, and completely active), and those patterns, which are observed, induce both nonrandom and random associations between the responses. More specifically, the inactive pattern requires a zero value in both the proportion for active behavior and the energy expenditure rate; a partially active pattern means that the proportion of activity is strictly between zero and one and that the energy expenditure rate is greater than zero and likely to be moderate, and the completely active pattern means that the proportion of activity is exactly one, and the energy expenditure rate is greater than zero and likely to be higher. To address these challenges, we propose a 3-part functional data joint modeling approach. The first part is a continuation-ratio model to reorder the ordinal valued 3 activity patterns. The second part models the proportions when they are in interval (0,1). The last component specifies the skewed continuous energy expenditure rate with Box-Cox transformations when they are greater than zero. In this 3-part model, the regression structures are specified as smooth curves measured at various time points with random effects that have a correlation structure. The smoothed random curves for each variable are summarized using a few important principal components, and the association of the 3 longitudinal components is modeled through the association of the principal component scores. The difficulties in handling the ordinal and proportional variables are addressed using a quasi-likelihood type approximation. We develop an efficient algorithm to fit the model that also involves the selection of the number of principal components. The method is applied to physical activity data and is evaluated empirically by a simulation study.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".