Ordinal outcomes: A cumulative probability model with the log link and an assumption of proportionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present here a study of ordinal outcomes with a cumulative probability model. In particular, we consider the log link with the assumption of proportionality. The logit link is currently the most widely used link with ordinal outcomes in the health research literature. With the logit link, one obtains regression coefficients that are functions of odds. When the log link is used, one obtains regression coefficients that are functions of probabilities. While odds might be preferred with certain studies that are retrospective, many health researchers may prefer to have direct statements about probabilities. There are two classes of models with the log link analogous to those with the logit link. We will call these two classes the Proportional Probability Model (PPM) and the Log Cumulative Probability Model (LCPM). These models introduce a challenge not seen with the logit link models. The log link models have constraints on the parameter space. We must insist that the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) satisfy these constraints. We present conditions for the uniqueness of the MLE and we present other features of the MLE. Several examples and several closed form expressions for the MLE are presented. While this paper is primarily about the PPM, our R package lcpm contains functions to fit both the PPM and the LCPM.
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 | 0.019 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".