Longitudinal data analysis with covariates measurement error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal data occur frequently in medical studies and covariates measured by error are typical features of such data. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) are commonly used to analyse longitudinal data. It is typically assumed that the random effects covariance matrix is constant across the subject (and among subjects) in these models. In many situations, however, this correlation structure may differ among subjects and ignoring this heterogeneity can cause the biased estimates of model parameters. In this thesis, following Lee et al. (2012), we propose an approach to properly model the random effects covariance matrix based on covariates in the class of GLMMs where we also have covariates measured by error. The resulting parameters from this decomposition have a sensible interpretation and can easily be modelled without the concern of positive definiteness of the resulting estimator. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated through simulation studies which show that the proposed method performs very well in terms biases and mean square errors as well as coverage rates. The proposed method is also analysed using a data from Manitoba Follow-up Study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".