Improving estimation efficiency for two-phase, outcome-dependent sampling studies
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
Two-phase outcome dependent sampling (ODS) is widely used in many fields, especially when certain covariates are expensive and/or difficult to measure. For two-phase ODS, the conditional maximum likelihood (CML) method is very attractive because it can handle zero Phase 2 selection probabilities and avoids modeling the covariate distribution. However, most existing CML-based methods use only the Phase 2 sample and thus may be less efficient than other methods. We propose a general empirical likelihood method that uses CML augmented with additional information in the whole Phase 1 sample to improve estimation efficiency. The proposed method maintains the ability to handle zero selection probabilities and avoids modeling the covariate distribution, but can lead to substantial efficiency gains over CML in the inexpensive covariates, or in the influential covariate when a surrogate is available, because of an effective use of the Phase 1 data. Simulations and a real data illustration using NHANES data are presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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