Omitting patients with no follow-up leads to bias when using inverse-intensity weighted GEEs to handle irregular and informative assessment times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data can be used to study disease progression and are often collected at irregular intervals. When the assessment times are informative about the severity of the disease, regression analyses of the outcome trajectory over time based on Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) result in biased estimates of regression coefficients. Inverse-intensity weighted GEEs (IIW-GEEs) are a popular approach to account for informative assessment times and yield unbiased estimates of outcome model coefficients when the assessment times and outcomes are conditionally independent given previously observed data. However, a consequence of irregular assessment times is that some patients may have no follow-up assessments at all, and it is common practice to omit these patients from analyses when studying the outcome trajectory over time. METHODS: We show mathematically that IIW-GEEs yield biased estimates of regression coefficients when patients with no follow-up assessments are excluded from analyses. We design a simulation study to evaluate how the bias varies with sample size, assessment frequency, follow-up time, and the informativeness of the assessment time process. Using the STAR*D trial of treatments for major depressive disorder, we examine the extent of bias in practice. RESULTS: Our simulation results showed the bias incurred by omitting patients with no follow-up visits increased as visit frequency decreased and as the duration of follow-up decreased. In the STAR*D trial, omitting patients with no follow-up visits led to over-estimation of the rate of improvement in depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Studies should be designed to ensure patients with no follow-up are included in the data. This can be achieved by a) creating inception cohorts; b) when taking sub-samples of existing cohorts, ensuring that patients without follow-up assessments are included; c) dropping exclusion criteria based on availability of follow-up visits.
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 | 0.154 | 0.311 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".