MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892216367 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2018.1490429

BiMM tree: a decision tree method for modeling clustered and longitudinal binary outcomes

2018· article· en· W2892216367 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesSouth Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina
KeywordsDecision treeTree (set theory)Binary treeComputer scienceOptimal binary search treeK-ary treeDecision tree modelInterval treeTree traversalMathematicsMachine learningTree structureCombinatoricsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustered binary outcomes are frequently encountered in clinical research (e.g. longitudinal studies). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) for clustered endpoints have challenges for some scenarios (e.g. data with multi-way interactions and nonlinear predictors unknown a priori). We develop an alternative, data-driven method called Binary Mixed Model (BiMM) tree, which combines decision tree and GLMM within a unified framework. Simulation studies show that BiMM tree achieves slightly higher or similar accuracy compared to standard methods. The method is applied to a real dataset from the Acute Liver Failure Study Group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it