MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162089838

A Comparison of Statistical Models and Deep Learning for Data with Binary Response and Longitudinal Covariates

2021· dissertation· en· W3162089838 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCovariateLongitudinal dataStatisticsBinary numberComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEconometricsData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In statistics, longitudinal data refers to data in which the response variable and explanatory variables are measured several times for each subject. However, in the machine learning literature, longitudinal data can also refer to data in which only the explanatory variables are repeatedly measured, but not the response variable. This thesis compared two statistical models - the baseline logistic regression and the two-stage joint model, and two neural network approaches - the feed-forward neural network and the recurrent neural network with long short-term memory, in terms of the prediction sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and Brier score. Data analysis was conducted using data from two clinical trials and a simulation study was also conducted. For the datasets generated and studied in this thesis, the neural network approaches show no advantages compared to the other statistical methods.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.269 · 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