A Bivariate Pseudolikelihood for Incomplete Longitudinal Binary Data with Nonignorable Nonmonotone Missingness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For analyzing longitudinal binary data with nonignorable and non-monotone missing responses, a full likelihood method is complicated algebraically, and often requires intensive computation, especially when there are many follow-up times. As an alternative, a pseudo-likelihood approach has been proposed in the literature under minimal parametric assumptions. This formulation only requires specification of the marginal distributions of the responses and missing data mechanism, and uses an independence working assumption. However, this estimator can be inefficient for estimating both time-varying and time-stationary effects under moderate to strong within-subject associations among repeated responses. In this article, we propose an alternative estimator, based on a bivariate pseudo-likelihood, and demonstrate in simulations that the proposed method can be much more efficient than the previous pseudo-likelihood obtained under the assumption of independence. We illustrate the method using longitudinal data on CD4 counts from two clinical trials of HIV-infected patients.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".