Quantifying the extent of visit irregularity in longitudinal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The timings of visits in observational longitudinal data may depend on the study outcome, and this can result in bias if ignored. Assessing the extent of visit irregularity is important because it can help determine whether visits can be treated as repeated measures or as irregular data. We propose plotting the mean proportions of individuals with 0 visits per bin against the mean proportions of individuals with >1 visit per bin as bin width is varied and using the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the extent of irregularity. The AUC is a single score which can be used to quantify the extent of irregularity and assess how closely visits resemble repeated measures. Simulation results confirm that the AUC increases with increasing irregularity while being invariant to sample size and the number of scheduled measurement occasions. A demonstration of the AUC was performed on the TARGet Kids! study which enrolls healthy children aged 0-5 years with the aim of investigating the relationship between early life exposures and later health problems. The quality of statistical analyses can be improved by using the AUC as a guide to select the appropriate analytic outcome approach and minimize the potential for biased results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".