Comparing Methods for Missing Paternal Linkages in Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveAdministrative data often lacks complete family linkages, particularly to fathers, hindering familial health research. We compared methods to address missing paternal linkages in research investigating the familial transfer of mental disorders. ApproachA population-based cohort study of Manitoba (Canada) born adults, +18 years old between 1977 and 2017 with maternal linkages. Three methods were used to address missing paternal linkages: indicator category, complete case, and multiple imputation, which identified three candidate fathers for each individual within -4 to +7 years of mother’s age with same postal code. For each method, the association of maternal and paternal history with mental disorder risk during follow-up was tested using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. ResultsThe cohort included 142,549 individuals; 22.6% lacked paternal linkages. Using indicator category, maternal and paternal histories were associated with mental disorder risk, with odds ratio (OR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-1.52 and OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.30-1.37, respectively. Similar results were obtained in the complete case analysis (OR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.45-1.53 and OR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.30-1.37, for maternal and paternal history, respectively). With multiple imputation, maternal history’s association with mental disorder risk remained consistent with the other methods (pooled OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.49-1.56); paternal history was associated with a smaller risk (pooled OR 1.25 95% CI: 1.22-1.29). Conclusions and ImplicationsThe three methods for addressing missing paternal linkages produced similar findings about the familial transfer of mental disorders. Future familial studies could incorporate multiple methods to demonstrate robustness of findings.
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 | 0.315 | 0.549 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".