Multiply robust subgroup analysis based on a single‐index threshold linear marginal model for longitudinal data with dropouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying subpopulations that may be sensitive to the specific treatment is an important step toward precision medicine. On the other hand, longitudinal data with dropouts is common in medical research, and subgroup analysis for this data type is still limited. In this paper, we consider a single-index threshold linear marginal model, which can be used simultaneously to identify subgroups with differential treatment effects based on linear combination of the selected biomarkers, estimate the treatment effects in different subgroups based on regression coefficients, and test the significance of the difference in treatment effects based on treatment-subgroup interaction. The regression parameters are estimated by solving a penalized smoothed generalized estimating equation and the selection bias caused by missingness is corrected by a multiply robust weighting matrix, which allows multiple missingness models to be taken account into estimation. The proposed estimator remains consistent when any model for missingness is correctly specified. Under regularity conditions, the asymptotic normality of the estimator is established. Simulation studies confirm the desirable finite-sample performance of the proposed method. As an application, we analyze the data from a clinical trial on pancreatic cancer.
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 | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".