Hybrid pairwise‐likelihood estimation methods for incomplete longitudinal binary data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In longitudinal data, missing observations occur commonly with incomplete responses and covariates. Missing data can have a ‘missing not at random’ mechanism, a non‐monotone missing pattern, and moreover response and covariates can be missing not simultaneously. To avoid complexities in both modelling and computation, a two‐stage estimation method and a pairwise‐likelihood method are proposed. The two‐stage estimation method enjoys simplicities in computation, but incurs more severe efficiency loss. On the other hand, the pairwise approach leads to estimators with better efficiency, but can be cumbersome in computation. In this paper, we develop a compromise method using a hybrid pairwise‐likelihood framework. Our proposed approach has better efficiency than the two‐stage method, but its computational cost is still reasonable compared to the pairwise approach. The performance of the methods is evaluated empirically by means of simulation studies. Our methods are used to analyse longitudinal data obtained from the National Population Health 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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it