跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要主要研究小区域调查估计,二元指标与 logistic 回归不足以确定离散选择或面板数据方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Donald Malec
J. Sedransk
Felicia B. Leclere

全国健康访谈调查中二元变量的小区域推断

研究问题
面向全国设计的调查难以精确估计小区域比例时,如何借助个体与县级信息,对有限总体中的二元健康指标开展推断?
方法与思路
作者建立县内个体 logistic 回归,并以县级协变量连接各县回归参数,实施层级贝叶斯计算,比较数值方法、近似及替代估计。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,研究提供后验矩计算与多方法比较,并用交叉验证和另一项具有高精度普查参照的二元指标研究评估拟合与估计。
阅读关注点
阅读时应核对调查设计和有限总体变异如何进入模型、县级参数如何共享信息,以及交叉验证单位和普查参照的比较方式。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;先验、抽样权重处理和比较数值未说明,不能判断层级贝叶斯是否普遍优于替代方法。

原文摘要

The National Health Interview Survey is designed to produce precise estimates of finite population parameters for the entire United States but not for small geographical areas or subpopulations. Our investigation concerns estimates of proportions such as the probability of at least one visit to a doctor within the past 12 months. To include all sources of variation in the model, we carry out a Bayesian hierarchical analysis for the desired finite population quantities. First, for each cluster (county) a separate logistic regression relates the individual's probability of a doctor visit to his or her characteristics. Second, a multivariate linear regression links cluster regression parameters to covariates measured at the cluster level. We describe the numerical methods needed to obtain the desired posterior moments. Then we compare estimates produced using the exact numerical method with approximations. Finally, we compare the hierarchical Bayes estimates to empirical Bayes estimates and to standard methods, that is, synthetic estimates and estimates obtained from a conventional randomization-based approach. We use a cross-validation exercise to assess the quality of model fit. We also summarize the results of a separate study of the binary indicator of partial work limitation. Because we know the value of this variable for each respondent to the 1990 Census long form, we can compare estimates corresponding to alternative methods and models with very accurate estimates of the true values.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文