MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3067784497 · doi:10.1177/0962280220948159

Model-robust designs for nonlinear quantile regression

2020· article· en· W3067784497 on OpenAlexaff
Selvakkadunko Selvaratnam, Linglong Kong, Douglas P. Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantile regressionQuantileStatisticsComputer scienceNonlinear regressionNonlinear systemEconometricsRegressionRegression analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct robust designs for nonlinear quantile regression, in the presence of both a possibly misspecified nonlinear quantile function and heteroscedasticity of an unknown form. The asymptotic mean-squared error of the quantile estimate is evaluated and maximized over a neighbourhood of the fitted quantile regression model. This maximum depends on the scale function and on the design. We entertain two methods to find designs that minimize the maximum loss. The first is local - we minimize for given values of the parameters and the scale function, using a sequential approach, whereby each new design point minimizes the subsequent loss, given the current design. The second is adaptive - at each stage, the maximized loss is evaluated at quantile estimates of the parameters, and a kernel estimate of scale, and then the next design point is obtained as in the sequential method. In the context of a Michaelis-Menten response model for an estrogen/hormone study, and a variety of scale functions, we demonstrate that the adaptive approach performs as well, in large study sizes, as if the parameter values and scale function were known beforehand and the sequential method applied. When the sequential method uses an incorrectly specified scale function, the adaptive method yields an, often substantial, improvement. The performance of the adaptive designs for smaller study sizes is assessed and seen to still be very favourable, especially so since the prior information required to design sequentially is rarely available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.795
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207