Causal inference with longitudinal data subject to irregular assessment times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected in the context of usual care present a rich source of longitudinal data for research, but often require analyses that simultaneously enable causal inferences from observational data while handling irregular and informative assessment times. An inverse-weighting approach to this was recently proposed, and handles the case where the assessment times are at random (ie, conditionally independent of the outcome process given the observed history). In this paper, we extend the inverse-weighting approach to handle a special case of assessment not at random, where assessment and outcome processes are conditionally independent given past observed covariates and random effects. We use multiple outputation to accomplish the same purpose as inverse-weighting, and apply it to the Liang semi-parametric joint model. Moreover, we develop an alternative joint model that does not require covariates for the outcome model to be known at times where there is no assessment of the outcome. We examine the performance of these methods through simulation and illustrate them through a study of the causal effect of wheezing on time spent playing outdoors among children aged 2-9 years and enrolled in the TargetKids! study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".