Non-penalty shrinkage estimation of random effect models for longitudinal data with AR(1) errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the non-penalty shrinkage estimation method of random effect models with autoregressive errors for longitudinal data when there are many covariates and some of them may not be active for the response variable. In observational studies, subjects are followed over equally or unequally spaced visits to determine the continuous response and whether the response is associated with the risk factors/covariates. Measurements from the same subject are usually more similar to each other and thus are correlated with each other but not with observations of other subjects. To analyse this data, we consider a linear model that contains both random effects across subjects and within-subject errors that follows autoregressive structure of order 1 (AR(1)). Considering the subject-specific random effect as a nuisance parameter, we use two competing models, one includes all the covariates and the other restricts the coefficients based on the auxiliary information. We consider the non-penalty shrinkage estimation strategy that shrinks the unrestricted estimator in the direction of the restricted estimator. We discuss the asymptotic properties of the shrinkage estimators using the notion of asymptotic biases and risks. A Monte Carlo simulation study is conducted to examine the relative performance of the shrinkage estimators with the unrestricted estimator when the shrinkage dimension exceeds two. We also numerically compare the performance of the shrinkage estimators to that of the LASSO estimator. A longitudinal CD4 cell count data set will be used to illustrate the usefulness of shrinkage and LASSO estimators.
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 | 0.022 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".