MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285042994 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15135

Approximate Methods For Analyzing Semi-Parametric Longitudinal Models With Non-Ignorable Missing Responses

2022· dissertation· en· W4285042994 on OpenAlexaff
Najla M. Aloraini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersQassim University
KeywordsEstimatorParametric statisticsMissing dataSpline (mechanical)Semiparametric modelMathematicsLinear modelMixed modelConditional expectationGeneralized linear mixed modelParametric modelApplied mathematicsVariance functionGeneralized linear modelStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we suggest and explore semi-parametric generalized partially linear mixed models for longitudinal data with non-ignorable and non-monotone missing responses.The key subject of our attention is the estimation of mean response parameters and variance components using a semi-parametric Monte Carlo EM method, where the conditional mean response is semiparametric.We first discuss the penalized regression spline method, which is often referred to as P-splines, for linear mixed model.We investigate the methods for estimating mean response parameters and variance components with complete data.We also investigate the connection between P-splines and linear mixed model through incorporating the non-parametric mean functions into longitudinal linear mixed model.An extensive simulation study using different semiparametric mean response functions are presented.Our simulation study reports that when the true underlying model is partially linear, the penalized spline method provides unbiased and efficient estimators.On the other hand, when the mean response is a correctly specified linear model, the P-spline still provides reliable estimates of the model parameters.Next, we present semi-parametric generalized partially linear mixed models for longitudinal data with non-ignorable missing responses.In this situation, we introduce a parametric model for non-ignorable missing data and incorporate it into the likelihood function.We obtain the asymptotic variances of the proposed estimators by the method of Louis (cf.[2], [7]).In addition, we propose and explore a semi-parametric Monte Carlo EM (MCEM) algorithm for simultaneous estimation of the regression parameters and variance components in partially and in-laws (Ibrahim, AbduAllah, Hesham, Saleh, Yousf, AbduAlaziz, Khawlah and Norah) for their unbelievable love and supports no matter what.For most of all, I would like to thank my loving, supportive, encouraging, and patient husband Waleed Alrajhi whose true support during my Ph.D. studies is very appreciated.The past years have not been an easy journey for both of us in many aspects.I deeply thank him for standing by my side, always and at any cost.Last but not least, my three amazing children, Ali, Mohammed and Almas, who have been an everlasting source of love and enthusiasm.v List of Tables 2.1 Empirical biases, mean squared errors (MSEs), coverage probabilities (CPs), and average lengths of 95% confidence intervals for m = 100 clusters and n = 4 measurements, S = 500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 2.2 Empirical biases, mean squared errors (MSEs), coverage probabilities (CPs), and average lengths of 95% confidence intervals for m = 200 clusters and n = 4 measurements, S = 500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 2.3 Empirical biases, mean squared errors (MSEs), coverage probabilities (CPs), and average lengths of 95% confidence intervals for m = 300 clusters and n = 4 measurements, S = 500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 2.4 Summary statistics of smoking status for youth group 12 -19 years old. . . . . .29 2.5 ML estimates and standard errors of parameters for CCHS. . . . . . . . . . . . .30 3.1 Empirical biases, mean squared errors (MSEs), coverage probabilities (CPs), and average lengths of 95% confidence intervals of maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of regression parameters and variance components, under different sample sizes m = 100, 200 and 300 and n = 2.The simulation is under NMAR model with roughly 23% missing response values, the missing data parameters φ φ φ = (-2.5,0.2, 0.3, 1) t , and m i = M = 2000 Gibbs sampling size, under S = 1000 simulation size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 xii 3.2 Empirical biases, mean squared errors (MSEs), coverage probabilities (CPs), and average lengths of 95% confidence intervals of maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of regression parameters and variance components, under different sample sizes m = 100, 200 and 300, and n = 2.The simulation is under NMAR model with roughly 30% missing response values, the missing data parameters φ φ φ = (-3, 0.2, 0.3, 1) t , and m i = M = 2000 Gibbs sampling size, under S = 1000 simulation size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 4.1 Comparison of Henderson's method (H) for mixed P-spline model with EM method for LMM.The simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) are for the estimators of mean responses at five different values of x, and variance components, under 500 simulation size.True mean response m 0 (x) is linear. . .78 4.2 Comparison of Henderson's method (H) for mixed P-spline model with EM method for LMM.The simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) are for the estimators of mean responses at five different values of x, and variance components, under 500 simulation size.True mean response m 0 (x) is quadratic.79 4.3 Comparison of Henderson's method (H) for mixed P-spline model with EM method for LMM.The simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) are for the estimators of mean responses at five different values of x, and variance components, under 500 simulation size.True mean response m 0 (x) is exponential.80 5.1 Comparison of our proposed semi-parametric MCEM method (Method 1) with the MCEM method of Ibrahim et al. (2001) (Method 2).The simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) are for the estimators of mean responses at five different values of x and variance components under 1000 simulation size.Missing data parameters φ φ φ = (-2.5,0.2, 0.3, 1) t leads to NMAR with 23% missing responses.True mean response m 0 (x) is linear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 xiii 5.2 Comparison of our proposed semi-parametric MCEM method (Method 1) with the MCEM method of Ibrahim et al. (2001) (Method 2).The simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) are for the estimators of mean responses at five different values of x and variance components under 1000 simulation size.Missing data parameters φ φ φ = (-2.5,0.2, 0.3, 1) t leads to NMAR with 23% missing responses.True mean response m 0 (x) is nonlinear (quadratic) . . . . . . . . . .111 5.3 Simulated biases and mean squared errors (MSEs) of the semi-parametric MCEM estimators of mean responses at five different values of x and variance components under 1000 simulation size.Missing data parameters φ φ φ = (-3, 0.2, 0.3, 1) t leads to NMAR with 30% missing responses.True mean response m 0 (x) is nonlinear (quadratic). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207