Logistic versus linear regression-based reliable change index: A simulation study with implications for clinical studies with different sample sizes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear regression-based reliable change index (RCI) is widely used to identify memory impairments through longitudinal assessment. However, the minimum sample size required for estimates to be reliable has never been specified. Using data from 920 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative data as true parameters, we run 12,000 simulations for samples of size 10-1,000 and analyzed the percentage of times the estimates are significant, their coverage rate, and the accuracy of the models including both the true-positive rate and the true-negative rate. We compared the linear RCI with a logistic RCI for discrete, bounded scores. We found that the logistic RCI is more accurate than the linear RCI overall, with the linear RCI approximating the logistic RCI for samples of size 200 or greater. We provide an R package to compute the logistic RCI, which can be downloaded from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/LogisticRCI/, and the code to reproduce all results in this article at https://github.com/rafamoral/LogisticRCIpaper/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.144 | 0.442 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".