Estimating the marginal effect of a continuous exposure on an ordinal outcome using data subject to covariate‐driven treatment and visit processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the statistical literature, a number of methods have been proposed to ensure valid inference about marginal effects of variables on a longitudinal outcome in settings with irregular monitoring times. However, the potential biases due to covariate-driven monitoring times and confounding have rarely been considered simultaneously, and never in a setting with an ordinal outcome and a continuous exposure. In this work, we propose and demonstrate a methodology for causal inference in such a setting, relying on a proportional odds model to study the effect of the exposure on the outcome. Irregular observation times are considered via a proportional rate model, and a generalization of inverse probability of treatment weights is used to account for the continuous exposure. We motivate our methodology by the estimation of the marginal (causal) effect of the time spent on video or computer games on suicide attempts in the Add Health study, a longitudinal study in the United States. Although in the Add Health data, observation times are prespecified, our proposed approach is applicable even in more general settings such as when analyzing data from electronic health records where observations are highly irregular. In simulation studies, we let observation times vary across individuals and demonstrate that not accounting for biasing imbalances due to the monitoring and the exposure schemes can bias the estimate for the marginal odds ratio of exposure.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".