A two-stage latent factor regression method to model the common and unique effects of multiple highly correlated exposure variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many epidemiological and environmental health studies, developing an accurate exposure assessment of multiple exposures on a health outcome is often of interest. However, the problem is challenging in the presence of multicollinearity, which can lead to biased estimates of regression coefficients and inflated variance estimators. Selecting one exposure variable as a surrogate of multiple highly correlated exposure variables is often suggested in the literature as a solution to handle the multicollinearity problem. However, this may lead to loss of information, since the exposure variables that are highly correlated tend to have not only common but also additional effects on the outcome variable. In this study, a two-stage latent factor regression method is proposed. The key idea is to regress the dependent variable not only on the common latent factor(s) of the explanatory variables, but also on the residuals terms from the factor analysis as the explanatory variables. The proposed method is compared to the traditional latent factor regression and principal component regression for their performance of handling multicollinearity. Two case studies are presented. Simulation studies are performed to assess their performances in terms of the epidemiological interpretation and stability of parameter estimates.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".