Model-Based Clustering and Prediction With Mixed Measurements Involving Surrogate Classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of underlying subpopulations to account for unobserved heterogeneity in the population is a challenging statistical problem, mainly because no explicit information about the latent classes is available. Although latent class analysis via finite mixture models is often used successfully to probabilistically identify subpopulations in applications, it often fails with data for which such subpopulations exhibit high latency. Borrowing strength from readily accessible auxiliary classifiers, even when subject to misclassification, may yield improved results in such settings. We develop in this article a joint modeling approach that combines data from multiple sources, including observed characteristics that are often used alone for clustering and classification, as well as results based on imperfect surrogate classifiers, to better identify the latent classes for more accurate classification and prediction. We outline maximum likelihood estimation for the joint model using the EM algorithm, and we show empirically via simulations that our methodology yields better estimates of the underlying latent class distributions than those obtained by ignoring the auxiliary information, while providing joint assessments of the surrogate classifiers. The advantages are significant when there is high latency and the surrogate classifiers are at least moderately accurate. We use real diagnostic data on dry eye disease, for which no gold standard is available, to illustrate our methodology.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".