MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405733642 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2024.2443195

Liu-type shrinkage estimators for mixture of logistic regressions: an osteoporosis study

2024· article· en· W4405733642 on OpenAlexaff
Elsayed Ghanem, Armin Hatefi, Hamid Usefi

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageLogistic regressionEstimatorStatisticsOsteoporosisShrinkage estimatorEconometricsType (biology)MathematicsMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicineGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The logistic regression model is one of the most powerful statistical methods for the analysis of binary data. Logistic regression allows using a set of covariates to explain the binary responses. A mixture of logistic regression models is used to fit heterogeneous populations using an unsupervised learning approach. The multicollinearity problem is one of the most common problems in logistic and a mixture of logistic regressions, where the covariates are highly correlated. This problem results in unreliable maximum likelihood estimates for the regression coefficients. This research develops shrinkage methods to deal with the multicollinearity in a mixture of logistic regression models. These shrinkage methods include ridge and Liu-type estimators. Through extensive numerical studies, we show that the developed methods provide more reliable results in estimating the coefficients of the mixture. Finally, we applied shrinkage methods to analyze the status of bone disorders in women aged 50 and older.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.382
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207