Search Results

variable bias: $$ \Delta y_{it} = \Delta X_{it}\beta + \Delta \epsilon_{it} $$ Where: $\Delta y_{it} = y_{it} - y_{i,t-1}$ represents the change in the outcome $\Delta X_{it} = X_{it} - X_{i,t-1}$ represents … Combine the best of both worlds - allow for general correlation structures while additionally controlling for certain types of omitted variable bias? …

If instead you sample from all those who have a typically fatal disease like ALS at some calendar date, you run a risk of survivorship bias. …

It's important to include other outcome-associated predictors, to avoid omitted-variable bias. …

Since both $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are returns, there is an omitted variable bias. … Suppose the true model is given by: $$ \mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{X}\beta + \mathbf{U}\phi + \mathbf{Z}\gamma + \epsilon $$ Suppose we omit $\mathbf{U}$ and the relationship between $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf …

Compared Harrell's bias correction (i.e. the Efron and Gong optimism bootstrap method) and the .632 and .632+ estimators Under relatively large sample settings (roughly, events per variable ≥ 10), the … Bootstrap: Discusses the "out of bag bootstrap method", i.e. fit a model to a bootstrap sample and predict on the samples that were omitted from that bootstrap sample (~ 1/3 of samples will be held out …

Omitted variable bias can also be a culprit. Every time you fit a model, you are splitting up the estimable variance in your outcome by more potential pieces. …

For any regression model, including a Cox model, it's not generally a good idea to cut a continuous predictor variable into bins. See this page and its links for extensive discussion. … First, omitting any outcome-associated variable from a Cox model can lead to bias in coefficient estimates. …

Even in ordinary least squares regressions, omitting an outcome-associated predictor that is correlated with an included predictor leads to omitted-variable bias. … For logistic regression, you get bias even if the omitted predictor is uncorrelated with the others. See this page. …

I am considering two models. One is a Poisson model where the true relationship is: $$E( y \mid x,z)=exp(bx+cx \times z + dz+ f(x))$$ The other is a linear model: $$E( y \mid x,z)=bx+cx \times z + dz …

happens when you include that term (under reasonable assumptions, based on your understanding of the subject matter) is a good way to evaluate the sensitivity of your outcome estimates to the potential omitted-variable … bias. …

Is it possible to derive the sign or magnitude of the bias in the case when x and z are not independent? (The paper discusses this case briefly but I was not able to follow the argument there.) … The specific case to which I would like to apply the answer is where the omitted variable is z=x*u with some unobservable $u \sim N(0,1)$. …

There is no substantive reason to omit any outcome-associated predictor from a model just because it doesn't pass some magical test threshold like $p < 0.05$. … There's a substantial risk of omitted-variable bias when you proceed that way, and you have all of the difficulties that come with automated model selection. …

Omitting any outcome-associated predictor from a Cox model will tend to bias the coefficient of an included predictor toward a value of 0, running a risk of throwing out a potentially important predictor … See Section 4.3 of RMS, on the general problem of variable selection. …

But the coefficient estimate could be "wrong" for all sorts of other reasons: model misspecification, e.g. omitted variable bias, incorrect functional form, measurement error, or even sample bias (statistical …

But it still could be wrong for all sorts of other reasons: omitted variable bias, measurement error, or simply that you didn't actually have a perfectly random sample. …