MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913181105 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2018.1554106

Handling missing birthdates in marginal regression analysis with recurrent events

2019· article· en· W2913181105 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsMissing dataRegression analysisRegressionStatisticsPsychologyEconometricsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In attempt to provide a practical guide to handling missing birthdate information, this paper examines the strategy proposed by Hu and Rosychuk (2016 Hu, X. J., and R. J. Rosychuk. 2016. Marginal regression analysis of recurrent events with coarsened censoring times. Biometrics 72 (4):1113–22. doi: 10.1111/biom.12503.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) for estimating age-varying effects in a marginal regression analysis of recurrent event times. We conduct empirical studies based on the same dataset that motivated Hu and Rosychuk’s research and explore how analysis outcomes differ when using different distributions for missing birthdates in situations with different sample sizes. Our studies show that Hu and Rosychuk’s assumption of uniformly-distributed birthdates is an appropriate and computationally efficient solution to restricted birthdate information with a reasonably large sample.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.502
Teacher spread0.281 · 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