Independence conditions and the analysis of life history studies with intermittent observation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multistate models provide a powerful framework for the analysis of life history processes when the goal is to characterize transition intensities, transition probabilities, state occupancy probabilities, and covariate effects thereon. Data on such processes are often only available at random visit times occurring over a finite period. We formulate a joint multistate model for the life history process, the recurrent visit process, and a random loss to follow-up time at which the visit process terminates. This joint model is helpful when discussing the independence conditions necessary to justify the use of standard likelihoods involving the life history model alone and provides a basis for analyses that accommodate dependence. We consider settings with disease-driven visits and routinely scheduled visits and develop likelihoods that accommodate partial information on the types of visits. Simulation studies suggest that suitably constructed joint models can yield consistent estimates of parameters of interest even under dependent visit processes, providing the models are correctly specified; identifiability and estimability issues are also discussed. An application is given to a cohort of individuals attending a rheumatology clinic where interest lies in progression of joint damage.
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 | 0.063 | 0.227 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".