A tractable method to account for high‐dimensional nonignorable missing data in intensive longitudinal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the need for sensitivity analysis to nonignorable missingness in intensive longitudinal data (ILD), such analysis is greatly hindered by novel ILD features, such as large data volume and complex nonmonotonic missing-data patterns. Likelihood of alternative models permitting nonignorable missingness often involves very high-dimensional integrals, causing curse of dimensionality and rendering solutions computationally prohibitive to obtain. We aim to overcome this challenge by developing a computationally feasible method, nonlinear indexes of local sensitivity to nonignorability (NISNI). We use linear mixed effects models for the incomplete outcome and covariates. We use Markov multinomial models to describe complex missing-data patterns and mechanisms in ILD, thereby permitting missingness probabilities to depend directly on missing data. Using a second-order Taylor series to approximate likelihood under nonignorability, we develop formulas and closed-form expressions for NISNI. Our approach permits the outcome and covariates to be missing simultaneously, as is often the case in ILD, and can capture U-shaped impact of nonignorability in the neighborhood of the missing at random model without fitting alternative models or evaluating integrals. We evaluate performance of this method using simulated data and real ILD collected by the ecological momentary assessment method.
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 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".