Bias Analysis for Misclassification Errors in both the Response Variable and Covariate
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
<b><i>Abstract–</i></b>Much literature has focused on statistical inference for misclassified response variables or misclassified covariates. However, misclassification in <i>both</i> the response variable and the covariate has received very limited attention within applied fields and the statistics community. In situations where the response variable and the covariate are simultaneously subject to misclassification errors, an assumption of independent misclassification errors is often used for convenience without justification. This article aims to show the harmful consequences of inappropriate adjustment for joint misclassification errors. In particular, we focus on the wrong adjustment by ignoring the dependence between the misclassification process of the response variable and the covariate. In this article, the dependence of misclassification in both variables is characterized by covariance-type parameters. We extend the original definition of dependence parameters to a more general setting. We discover a single quantity that governs the dependence of the two misclassification processes. Moreover, we propose likelihood ratio tests to check the nondifferential/independent misclassification assumption in main study/internal validation study designs. Our simulation studies indicate that ignoring the dependent error structure can be even worse than ignoring all the misclassification errors when the validation data size is relatively small. The methodology is illustrated by a real data example.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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