Feasibility of Classifying Life Stages and Searching for the Determinants: Results from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 1996–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life stages are not clearly defined and significant determinants for the identification of stages are not discussed. This study aims to test a data-driven approach to define stages and to identify the major determinants. METHODS: This study analyzed the data on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey interviewees from 1996 to 2011 in the United States. This study first selected features with the Spearman's correlation to remove redundant variables and to increase computational feasibility. The retained 430 variables were log transformed, if applicable. Sixty-four nominal variables were replaced with 164 binominal variables. This led to 525 variables that were available for principal component analysis (PCA). Life stages were proposed to be periods of ages with significantly different values of principal components (PCs). RESULTS: > 0.5), and the major determinants were related to functional status, employment, and poverty. CONCLUSION: Important stages and their major determinants, including the status of functionality and cognition, income, and marital status, can be identified. Identifying stages of stability or transition will be important for research that relies on a research population with similar characteristics to draw samples for observation or intervention. CONTRIBUTION: This study sets an example of defining stages of transition and stability across ages with social and health data. Among all available variables, cognitive limitations, income, and poverty are important determinants of these stages.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".