Accounting for drop-out using inverse probability censoring weights in longitudinal clustered data with informative cluster size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodontal disease is a serious gum infection impacting half of the U.S. adult population that may lead to loss of teeth. Using standard marginal models to study the association between patient-level predictors and tooth-level outcomes can lead to biased estimates because the independence assumption between the outcome (periodontal disease) and cluster size (number of teeth per patient) is violated. Specifically, the baseline number of teeth of a patient is informative. In this setting a cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations (CWGEE) approach can be used to obtain unbiased marginal inference from data with informative cluster size (ICS). However, in many longitudinal studies of dental health, including the Veterans Affairs Dental Longitudinal Study, the rate of tooth-loss or tooth drop-out over time is also informative, creating a missing at random data mechanism. Here, we propose a novel modeling approach that incorporates the technique of inverse probability censoring weights into CWGEE with binary outcomes to account for ICS and informative drop-out over time. In an extensive simulation study we demonstrate that results obtained from our proposed method yield lower bias and excellent coverage probability, compared to those obtained from traditional methods which do not account for ICS or drop-out.
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 | 0.038 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".