Functional principal component analysis for longitudinal data with informative dropout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In longitudinal studies, the values of biomarkers are often informatively missing due to dropout. The conventional functional principal component analysis typically disregards the missing information and simply treats the unobserved data points as missing completely at random. As a result, the estimation of the mean function and the covariance surface might be biased, resulting in a biased estimation of the functional principal components. We propose the informatively missing functional principal component analysis (imFunPCA), which is well suited for cases where the longitudinal trajectories are subject to informative missingness. Computation of the functional principal components in our approach is based on the likelihood of the data, where information of both the observed and missing data points are incorporated. We adopt a regression-based orthogonal approximation method to decompose the latent stochastic process based on a set of orthonormal empirical basis functions. Under the case of informative missingness, we show via simulation studies that the performance of our approach is superior to that of the conventional ones. We apply our method on a longitudinal dataset of kidney glomerular filtration rates for patients post renal transplantation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".