A Joint Bayesian Model for Change-Points and Heteroskedasticity Applied to the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining homeostasis, the regulation of internal physiological parameters, is essential for health and well-being. Deviations from optimal levels, or 'sweet spots,' can lead to health deterioration and disease. Identifying biomarkers with sweet spots requires both change-point detection and variance effect analysis. Traditional approaches involve separate tests for change-points and heteroskedasticity, which can yield inaccurate results if model assumptions are violated. To address these challenges, we propose a unified approach: Bayesian Testing for Heteroskedasticity and Sweet Spots (BTHS). This framework integrates sampling-based parameter estimation and Bayes factor computation to enhance change-point detection, heteroskedasticity quantification, and testing in change-point regression settings, and extends previous Bayesian approaches. BTHS eliminates the need for separate analyses and provides detailed insights into both the magnitude and shape of heteroskedasticity, enabling robust identification of sweet spots without strong assumptions. We applied BTHS to blood elements from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging identifying nine blood elements with significant sweet spot variance effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".