Variable selection in semiparametric regression models for longitudinal data with informative observation times
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
A common issue in longitudinal studies is that subjects' visits are irregular and may depend on observed outcome values which is known as longitudinal data with informative observation times (follow-up). Semiparametric regression modeling for this type of data has received much attention as it provides more flexibility in studying the association between regression factors and a longitudinal outcome. An important problem here is how to select relevant variables and estimate their coefficients in semiparametric regression models when the number of covariates at baseline is large. The current penalization procedures in semiparametric regression models for longitudinal data do not account for informative observation times. We propose a variable selection procedure that is suitable for the estimation methods based on pseudo-score functions. We investigate the asymptotic properties of penalized estimators and conduct simulation studies to illustrate the theoretical results. We also use the procedure for variable selection in semiparametric regression models for the STAR*D dataset from a multistage randomized clinical trial for treating major depressive disorder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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