Bias Analysis for Misclassification Errors in both the Response Variable and Covariate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
–Much literature has focused on statistical inference for misclassified response variables or misclassified covariates. However, misclassification in both 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.
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 | 0.120 | 0.339 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".