Marginal structural models with Latent Class Growth Modeling of Treatment Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a real-life setting, little is known regarding the effectiveness of statins for primary prevention among older adults, and analysis of observational data can add crucial information on the benefits of actual patterns of use. Latent class growth models (LCGM) are increasingly proposed as a solution to summarize the observed longitudinal treatment in a few distinct groups. When combined with standard approaches like Cox proportional hazards models, LCGM can fail to control time-dependent confounding bias because of time-varying covariates that have a double role of confounders and mediators. We propose to use LCGM to classify individuals into a few latent classes based on their medication adherence pattern, then choose a working marginal structural model (MSM) that relates the outcome to these groups. The parameter of interest is nonparametrically defined as the projection of the true MSM onto the chosen working model. The combination of LCGM with MSM is a convenient way to describe treatment adherence and can effectively control time-dependent confounding. Simulation studies were used to illustrate our approach and compare it with unadjusted, baseline covariates-adjusted, time-varying covariates adjusted and inverse probability of trajectory groups weighting adjusted models. We found that our proposed approach yielded estimators with little or no bias.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".