Accuracy Measure of Separate and Joint Modelling for a Correlated Binary Outcome: The Case Study of Mother Education and Immunization in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint modelling is a statistical approach that is used to analyze correlated data when two or more outcome variables are correlated. By joint modeling, we refer to the simultaneous analysis of two or more different response variables from the same individual. But in a separate model, it is unable to measure the effect of covariate simultaneously. This article focuses on separate and joint modelling for correlated discrete data, including logistic regression models for binary outcomes. Since most of the women are illiterate in Bangladesh and most of the people are living in urban areas, as a result, most of the women are not aware of immunization. But an educated mother is always aware of her child's health which is dependent on immunization. Therefore, mother education and immunization are interdependent. We jointly address the effect of maternal education and immunization. Joint modeling of these two outcomes is appropriate because mother education helps raise awareness of the child's health and immunization is the prevention of various diseases for the child's health. We also identified factors influencing maternal education and immunization among women in Bangladesh. By jointly modelling we found the correlation between maternal education and immunization and the most important contributing factor. The joint model removes a less significant impact of covariates as opposed to separate models. These findings further suggested that the simultaneous impact of correlated outcomes can be adequately addressed between different responses, which is overestimated or underestimated when examined separately.
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 | 0.043 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".