Weighted regression analysis to correct for informative monitoring times and confounders in longitudinal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address estimation of the marginal effect of a time-varying binary treatment on a continuous longitudinal outcome in the context of observational studies using electronic health records, when the relationship of interest is confounded, mediated, and further distorted by an informative visit process. We allow the longitudinal outcome to be recorded only sporadically and assume that its monitoring timing is informed by patients' characteristics. We propose two novel estimators based on linear models for the mean outcome that incorporate an adjustment for confounding and informative monitoring process through generalized inverse probability of treatment weights and a proportional intensity model, respectively. We allow for a flexible modeling of the intercept function as a function of time. Our estimators have closed-form solutions, and their asymptotic distributions can be derived. Extensive simulation studies show that both estimators outperform standard methods such as the ordinary least squares estimator or estimators that only account for informative monitoring or confounders. We illustrate our methods using data from the Add Health study, assessing the effect of depressive mood on weight in adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".