Repeated measures discriminant analysis using multivariate generalized estimation 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
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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.454 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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