A simulation study to assess the impact missing values on the performance of different statistical methods for analysis of binary repeated measures data with an additional hierarchical structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of the study was to assess the impact of missing values on the analy- sis of binary repeated measures data with an additional hierarchical structure. One motivat- ing example for the present study was records of high somatic cell counts in milk samples obtained by approximately monthly sampling throughout the lactations of cows in dairy herds. Random effects models with autocorrelated (ρ = 1, 0.9 or 0.5) subject-level ran- dom effects were behind the simulated data. In general, the settings of the simulation were chosen to reflect a real somatic cell count dataset (scc40), except that the within-cow time series length was set to 8-time points for each cow. The estimation procedures consid- ered were: Ordinary Logistic Regression (OLR), Alternating Logistic Regression (ALR), Weighted Generalized Estimating Equations (WGEE), Penalized Quasi Likelihood (PQL), Maximum likelihood via numerical integration (ML) and Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Multiple scenarios of simulated incomplete datasets were considered and include: a scenario corresponded to a combination of missingness patterns present in the scc40 dataset (scc40 scenario) The remaining scenarios involved only drop-outs, and corre- sponded to either moderate or high percentages of values either missing at random (MAR) or not missing at random (NMAR), respectively. In the scc40 scenario, all estimation procedures except OLR performed well and produced estimates with small relative bias (generally less than 5%) for levels of missingness that roughly corresponded to the scc40 data. In MAR missingness scenarios, some biases were found for ALR, WGEE and PQL procedures, whereas the likelihood-based procedures were largely unaffected by the miss- ing values. In NMAR scenarios, all procedures experienced similar and strong biases in the time coefficient; however, fixed effects estimates at the subject and cluster levels were relatively unaffected. Journal of Statistical Research 2023, Vol 57, No.1-2, pp.35-67
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 | 0.038 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".