MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141196614 · doi:10.1002/sim.8966

Multiparameter one‐sided tests for nonlinear mixed effects models with censored responses

2021· article· en· W3141196614 on OpenAlexaff
Guohai Zhou, Lang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME) models are commonly used in longitudinal studies such as pharmacokinetics and HIV viral dynamics studies. NLME models are often derived based on underlying data-generating mechanisms, therefore the parameters in these models often have natural physical interpretations that may suggest reasonable constraints on certain parameters. For example, the HIV viral decay rates for populations receiving anti-HIV treatments may be reasonably expected to be nonnegative. Hypothesis testing for these parameters should incorporate practically reasonable constraints to increase statistical power. Motivated from HIV viral dynamic models, in this article we propose multiparameter one-sided or constrained tests for NLME models with censored responses, for example, viral dynamic models with viral loads subject to lower detection limits. We propose approximate likelihood-based tests that are computationally efficient. We evaluate the tests via simulations and show that the proposed tests are more powerful than the corresponding two-sided or unrestricted tests. We apply the proposed tests to two AIDS datasets with new findings.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207