<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
AbstractWe review and compare three estimators of median regression in linear models with longitudinal data. The estimators are constructed based on well‐known ideas of weighting, decorrelating, and the working assumption of independence. Both asymptotic efficiency calculations and finite‐sample Monte Carlo studies are used to assess the performance of these estimators. We find that their relative performances depend on the nature of covariates. The estimator under the working assumption of independence is computationally simple and yet has good relative performance when the covariates are invariant over time or when the within‐subject correlations are small. Its relative performance in finite samples is also found to be more favourable than suggested by the asymptotic comparisons. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analgesics, Labor, Obstetric, Estimating equation, Weight Lifting, Longitudinal data, Median regression, Pain, Pain - Drug Therapy, Efficiency, Labor, 310, Analgesics - Pharmacology - Therapeutic Use, Mixed model, Pregnancy, Obstetric - Physiology, Weight Lifting - Physiology, Linear Models, Humans, Female, Longitudinal Studies, Labor, Obstetric - Physiology, Robustness
Analgesics, Labor, Obstetric, Estimating equation, Weight Lifting, Longitudinal data, Median regression, Pain, Pain - Drug Therapy, Efficiency, Labor, 310, Analgesics - Pharmacology - Therapeutic Use, Mixed model, Pregnancy, Obstetric - Physiology, Weight Lifting - Physiology, Linear Models, Humans, Female, Longitudinal Studies, Labor, Obstetric - Physiology, Robustness
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 54 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |