Regressive class models for machine learning algorithms to predict trajectories of repeated multinomial outcomes: an application to the activity of daily living of elderly data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the advancement of electronic data capturing, the amount of repeated categorical data being collected and stored has increased. This massive amount of data is complex and poses significant statistical challenges in methodology and computation. To analyze such big data, the divide and recombine method is commonly used. First, a large data set is partitioned into subsets, and each subset is analyzed separately. Then, the results are recombined in a manner that produces statistically valid output. However, available literature can only accommodate cross-sectional data. We propose a new simpler approach to analyze large, repeated categorical data using a joint modeling framework. In the proposed method, follow-up time is a natural conditioning variable that allows big data to be divided into subsets. Then, using the relationship between joint, marginal, and conditional probabilities, we can recombine the results in a statistically valid way. Several machine learning algorithms for cross-sectional data are extended for repeated outcomes to predict trajectories using the proposed framework. As an illustration, the proposed methodology is used to analyze repeatedly measured activity of daily living (ADL) data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), USA. We also check model performances under multiple machine learning algorithms using bootstrap simulations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".