Handling ties in continuous outcomes for confounder adjustment with rank-ordered logit and its application to ordinal outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rank-ordered logit (rologit) model was recently introduced as a robust approach for analysing continuous outcomes, with the linear exposure effect estimated by scaling the rank-based log-odds estimate. Here we extend the application of the rologit model to continuous outcomes with ties and ordinal outcomes treated as imperfectly-observed continuous outcomes. By identifying the functional relationship between survival times and continuous outcomes, we explicitly establish the equivalence between the rologit and Cox models to justify the use of the Breslow, Efron and perturbation methods in the analysis of continuous outcomes with ties. Using simulation, we found all three methods perform well with few ties. Although an increasing extent of ties increased the bias of the log-odds and linear effect estimates and resulted in reduced power, which was somewhat worse when the model was mis-specified, the perturbation method maintained a type I error around 5%, while the Efron method became conservative with heavy ties but outperformed Breslow. In general, the perturbation method had the highest power, followed by the Efron and then the Breslow method. We applied our approach to three real-life datasets, demonstrating a seamless analytical workflow that uses stratification for confounder adjustment in studies of continuous and ordinal outcomes.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".