Repeated measures discriminant analysis using multivariate generalized estimation equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discriminant analysis procedures that assume parsimonious covariance and/or means structures have been proposed for distinguishing between two or more populations in multivariate repeated measures designs. However, these procedures rely on the assumptions of multivariate normality which is not tenable in multivariate repeated measures designs which are characterized by binary, ordinal, or mixed types of response distributions. This study investigates the accuracy of repeated measures discriminant analysis (RMDA) based on the multivariate generalized estimating equations (GEE) framework for classification in multivariate repeated measures designs with the same or different types of responses repeatedly measured over time. Monte Carlo methods were used to compare the accuracy of RMDA procedures based on GEE, and RMDA based on maximum likelihood estimators (MLE) under diverse simulation conditions, which included number of repeated measure occasions, number of responses, sample size, correlation structures, and type of response distribution. RMDA based on GEE exhibited higher average classification accuracy than RMDA based on MLE especially in multivariate non-normal distributions. Three repeatedly measured responses namely severity of epilepsy, current number of anti-epileptic drugs, and parent-reported quality of life in children with epilepsy were used to demonstrate the application of these procedures.
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 | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".