A Note on Monotonicity in Repeated Attempt Selection Models.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Park S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7449508 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Note on Monotonicity in Repeated Attempt Selection Models.
Park Seunghwan S Daniels Michael J MJ
Statistics & probability letters 20190822
Study designs where follow-up samples are collected through multiple attempts have been called repeated attempts designs. In this note we explore the monotonicity thought to underly the models fit for these designs and show it does not always hold. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:It is not uncommon in follow-up studies to make multiple attempts to collect a measurement after baseline. Recording whether these attempts are successful or not provides useful information for the purposes of assessing the missing at random (MAR) assumption and facilitating missing not at random (MNAR) modeling. This is because measurements from subjects who provide this data after multiple failed attempts may differ from those who provide the measurement after fewer attempts. This type of "continuum of resistance" to providing a measurement has hitherto been modeled in a selection model framework, where the outcome data is modeled jointly with the success or failure of the attempts given these outcomes. Here, we present a pattern mixture approach to model this type of data. We re-analyze the repeated attempt data from a trial that was previously analyzed using a selection model approach. Our pattern mixture model is more flexible and is more transparent in terms of parameter identifiability than the models that have previously been used to model repeated attempt data and allows for sensitivity analysis. We conclude that our approach to modeling this type of data provides a fully viable alternative to the more established selection model.
| S-EPMC4836559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper defines and analyzes a new monotonicity condition for the identification of counterfactuals and treatment effects in unordered discrete choice models with multiple treatments, heterogenous agents and discrete-valued instruments. Unordered monotonicity implies and is implied by additive separability of choice of treatment equations in terms of observed and unobserved variables. These results follow from properties of binary matrices developed in this paper. We investigate conditions under which unordered monotonicity arises as a consequence of choice behavior. We characterize IV estimators of counterfactuals as solutions to discrete mixture problems.
| S-EPMC5822751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The assumption of latent monotonicity is made by all common parametric and nonparametric polytomous item response theory models and is crucial for establishing an ordinal level of measurement of the item score. Three forms of latent monotonicity can be distinguished: monotonicity of the cumulative probabilities, of the continuation ratios, and of the adjacent-category ratios. Observable consequences of these different forms of latent monotonicity are derived, and Bayes factor methods for testing these consequences are proposed. These methods allow for the quantification of the evidence both in favor and against the tested property. Both item-level and category-level Bayes factors are considered, and their performance is evaluated using a simulation study. The methods are applied to an empirical example consisting of a 10-item Likert scale to investigate whether a polytomous item scoring rule results in item scores that are of ordinal level measurement.
| S-EPMC6820449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Longitudinal data are becoming increasingly available in developmental neuroimaging. To maximize the promise of this wealth of information on how biology, behavior, and cognition change over time, there is a need to incorporate broad and rigorous training in longitudinal methods into the repertoire of developmental neuroscientists. Fortunately, these models have an incredibly rich tradition in the broader developmental sciences that we can draw from. Here, we provide a primer on longitudinal models, written in a beginner-friendly (and slightly irreverent) manner, with a particular focus on selecting among different modeling frameworks (e.g., multilevel versus latent curve models) to build the theoretical model of development a researcher wishes to test. Our aims are three-fold: (1) lay out a heuristic framework for longitudinal model selection, (2) build a repository of references that ground each model in its tradition of methodological development and practical implementation with a focus on connecting researchers to resources outside traditional neuroimaging journals, and (3) provide practical resources in the form of a codebook companion demonstrating how to fit these models. These resources together aim to enhance training for the next generation of developmental neuroscientists by providing a solid foundation for future forays into advanced modeling applications.
| S-EPMC10412784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The article tackles the practice of testing latent variable models. The analysis covered recently published studies from 11 psychology journals varying in orientation and impact. Seventy-five studies that matched the criterion of applying some of the latent modeling techniques were reviewed. Results indicate the presence of a general tendency to ignore the model test (χ(2)) followed by the acceptance of approximate fit hypothesis without detailed model examination yielding relevant empirical evidence. Due to reduced sensitivity of such a procedure to confront theory with data, there is an almost invariable tendency to accept the theoretical model. This absence of model test consequences, manifested in frequently unsubstantiated neglect of evidence speaking against the model, thus implies the perilous question of whether such empirical testing of latent structures (the way it is widely applied) makes sense at all.
| S-EPMC4635201 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10840016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesClinical note section identification helps locate relevant information and could be beneficial for downstream tasks such as named entity recognition. However, the traditional supervised methods suffer from transferability issues. This study proposes a new framework for using large language models (LLMs) for section identification to overcome the limitations.Materials and methodsWe framed section identification as question-answering and provided the section definitions in free-text. We evaluated multiple LLMs off-the-shelf without any training. We also fine-tune our LLMs to investigate how the size and the specificity of the fine-tuning dataset impacts model performance.ResultsGPT4 achieved the highest F1 score of 0.77. The best open-source model (Tulu2-70b) achieved 0.64 and is on par with GPT3.5 (ChatGPT). GPT4 is also found to obtain F1 scores greater than 0.9 for 9 out of the 27 (33%) section types and greater than 0.8 for 15 out of 27 (56%) section types. For our fine-tuned models, we found they plateaued with an increasing size of the general domain dataset. We also found that adding a reasonable amount of section identification examples is beneficial.DiscussionThese results indicate that GPT4 is nearly production-ready for section identification, and seemingly contains both knowledge of note structure and the ability to follow complex instructions, and the best current open-source LLM is catching up.ConclusionOur study shows that LLMs are promising for generalizable clinical note section identification. They have the potential to be further improved by adding section identification examples to the fine-tuning dataset.
| S-EPMC11319784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Models based on the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process have become standard for the comparative study of adaptation. Cooper et al. (2016) have cast doubt on this practice by claiming statistical problems with fitting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models to comparative data. Specifically, they claim that statistical tests of Brownian motion may have too high Type I error rates and that such error rates are exacerbated by measurement error. In this note, we argue that these results have little relevance to the estimation of adaptation with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models for three reasons. First, we point out that Cooper et al. (2016) did not consider the detection of distinct optima (e.g. for different environments), and therefore did not evaluate the standard test for adaptation. Second, we show that consideration of parameter estimates, and not just statistical significance, will usually lead to correct inferences about evolutionary dynamics. Third, we show that bias due to measurement error can be corrected for by standard methods. We conclude that Cooper et al. (2016) have not identified any statistical problems specific to Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models, and that their cautions against their use in comparative analyses are unfounded and misleading. [adaptation, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, phylogenetic comparative method.].
| S-EPMC10405355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Measuring natural selection through the use of multiple regression has transformed our understanding of selection, although the methods used remain sensitive to the effects of multicollinearity due to highly correlated traits. While measuring selection on principal component (PC) scores is an apparent solution to this challenge, this approach has been heavily criticized due to difficulties in interpretation and relating PC axes back to the original traits. We describe and illustrate how to transform selection gradients for PC scores back into selection gradients for the original traits, addressing issues of multicollinearity and biological interpretation. In addition to reducing multicollinearity, we suggest that this method may have promise for measuring selection on high-dimensional data such as volatiles or gene expression traits. We demonstrate this approach with empirical data and examples from the literature, highlighting how selection estimates for PC scores can be interpreted while reducing the consequences of multicollinearity.
| S-EPMC6121829 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5249000 | biostudies-literature