Modeling the random effects covariance matrix for longitudinal data with covariates measurement error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal data occur frequently in practice such as medical studies and life sciences. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) are commonly used to analyze such data. It is typically assumed that the random effects covariance matrix is constant among subjects in these models. In many situations, however, the correlation structure may differ among subjects and ignoring this heterogeneity can lead to biases in model parameters estimate. Recently, Lee et al developed a heterogeneous random effects covariance matrix for GLMMs for error-free covariates. Covariates measured with error also happen frequently in the longitudinal data set-up (eg, blood pressure and cholesterol level). Ignoring this issue in the data may produce bias in model parameters estimate and lead to wrong conclusions. In this paper, we propose an approach to properly model the random effects covariance matrix based on covariates in the class of GLMMs, where we also have covariates measured with error. The resulting parameters from the decomposition of random effects covariance matrix have a sensible interpretation and can be easily modeled without the concern of positive definiteness of the resulting estimator. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated through simulation studies, which show that the proposed method performs very well in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage rate. An application of the proposed method is also provided using a longitudinal data from Manitoba follow-up 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 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 | 0.029 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".