A Bootstrap Approach for Evaluating Uncertainty in the Number of Groups Identified by Latent Class Growth Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of longitudinal finite mixture models such as group-based trajectory modeling has seen a sharp increase during the last few decades in the medical literature. However, these methods have been criticized, especially because of the data-driven modeling process, which involves statistical decision-making. In this paper, we propose an approach that uses the bootstrap to sample observations with replacement from the original data to validate the number of groups identified and to quantify the uncertainty in the number of groups. The method allows investigation of the statistical validity and uncertainty of the groups identified in the original data by checking to see whether the same solution is also found across the bootstrap samples. In a simulation study, we examined whether the bootstrap-estimated variability in the number of groups reflected the replicationwise variability. We evaluated the ability of 3 commonly used adequacy criteria (average posterior probability, odds of correct classification, and relative entropy) to identify uncertainty in the number of groups. Finally, we illustrate the proposed approach using data from the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System to identify longitudinal medication patterns between 2015 and 2018 in older adults with diabetes.
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 | 0.059 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".