MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017325486

Analysis of multivariate responses in patient reported outcome measures: missing data and auxiliary variables

2022· dissertation· en· W7017325486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)Multivariate statisticsLatent variable modelLatent variableItem response theoryType I and type II errorsMultivariate analysisOddsMultivariate normal distribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical registries and clinical trials to collect information about patient’s perspectives of their own health. Item non-response or missing data, which may occur when patients fail to complete or respond to PROMs question, threatens the validity of findings from the assessment of group differences or longitudinal change in PROMs. The goal of this research was to develop and evaluate methods for addressing item non-response in PROMs. Four related studies were undertaken using the population-based Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Joint Replacement Registry and simulated data. The first study compared the performance of non-negative matrix factorization (NNMF), which is an unsupervised machine-learning method that uses optimization techniques to detect a low-dimensional structure from the data, with full information maximum likelihood (FIML). The methods were applied to test for differential item functioning in multidimensional PROMs. The second study evaluated the performance of NNMF, FIML, and multiple imputation (MI) with conditional proportional odds model when estimating longitudinal change in latent variable means. The third study investigated the use of auxiliary variables, which are potential correlates of missingness in the data, in imputation model and compared the precision and bias of FIML, MI with and without auxiliary variable, when estimating longitudinal change in PROM scores. The fourth study proposed an enhanced weighted NNMF, which uses observed item responses as auxiliary variable to define weights for item-level imputation, and compares the performance with FIML, and NNMF. We found that the Type I error rates and statistical power for NNMF were comparable to the FIML method. The NNMF method is relatively efficient when sample size is large (i.e., >500) and the percentage of non-response is high, but less optimal under other data-analytic conditions. Also, we showed that including auxiliary information in the imputation model increased the precision and reduced the bias of the estimated parameters. This research contributes to the statistical literature on methods to address missing data in PROMs with potential applications in clinical and quality of life research. Also, it demonstrates the practicality of using observed item responses to define an auxiliary variable, which provides a basis for accessible approach of identifying auxiliary variable in PROMs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.009 · 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