Fitting marginal models in small samples: A simulation study of marginalized multilevel models and generalized estimating equations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In correlated data settings, analysts typically choose between fitting conditional and marginal models, whose parameters come with distinct interpretations, and as such the choice between the two should be made on scientific grounds. For settings where interest lies in marginal-or population-averaged-parameters, the question of how best to estimate those parameters is a statistical one, and analysts have at their disposal two distinct modeling frameworks: generalized estimating equations (GEE) and marginalized multilevel models (MMMs). The two have been contrasted theoretically and in large sample settings, but asymptotic theory provides no guarantees in the small sample settings that are commonplace. In a comprehensive series of simulation studies, we shed light on the relative performance of GEE and MMMs in small-sample settings to help guide analysis decisions in practice. We find that both GEE and MMMs exhibit similar small-sample bias when the correct correlation structure is adopted (ie, when the random effects distribution is correctly specified or moderately misspecified)-but MMMs can be sensitive to misspecification of the correlation structure. When there are a small number of clusters, MMMs only slightly underestimate standard errors (SEs) for within-cluster associations but can severely underestimate SEs for between-cluster associations. By contrast, while GEE severely underestimates SEs, the Mancl and DeRouen correction provides approximately valid inference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it