Meeting the Assumptions of Inverse-Intensity Weighting for Longitudinal Data Subject to Irregular Follow-Up: Suggestions for the Design and Analysis of Clinic-Based Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Clinic-based cohort studies enroll patients on first being admitted to the clinic, and follow them as part of usual care, with interest being in the marginal mean of the outcome process. As the required frequency of follow-up varies among patients, these studies often feature irregular visit times, with no two patients sharing a visit time. Inverse-intensity weighting has been developed to handle this, however it requires that the visit process be conditionally independent of the outcome given the observed history. When patients schedule visits in response to changes in their health (for example a disease flare), the conditional independence assumption is no longer plausible, leading to biased results. We suggest additional information that can be collected to ensure that conditional independence holds, and examine how this might be used in the analysis. This allows clinic-based cohort studies to be used to determine longitudinal outcomes without incurring bias due to irregular follow-up.
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 | 0.390 | 0.729 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".