Regression on imperfect class labels derived by unsupervised clustering

Martin B{\o}gsted; Rasmus Froberg Br{\o}ndum; Thomas Yssing Michaelsen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Regression on imperfect class labels derived by unsupervised clustering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Regressing on cluster labels quietly biases effect estimates; a simulation-extrapolation step corrects the bias.

desk verdict Useful, honest application of mcsimex to regression on unsupervised cluster labels, with a real gap between the consistency argument and the bootstrap matrix used in the survival application. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05885 v1 pith:F3YZR2FG submitted 2019-08-16 stat.ML cs.LGstat.ME

Rasmus Froberg Br{o}ndum , Thomas Yssing Michaelsen , Martin B{o}gsted This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.ME MSC 62H3062J1262N02

keywords misclassificationunsupervisedclusteringsimulation-extrapolationmcsimexmeasurementerrorlogisticregressionCoxproportionalhazardsGaussianmixturemodel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the common practice of regressing an outcome on class labels obtained from unsupervised clustering is statistically flawed because the labels carry misclassification error, and the error is usually ignored. The authors propose to treat the clusters as misclassified categorical covariates and to correct the regression using the misclassification simulation and extrapolation method (mcsimex). They show, via simulation, that the mcsimex correction with a misclassification matrix estimated from the fitted Gaussian mixture model reduces bias and improves confidence-interval coverage for logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. The method is then applied to a multiple myeloma survival study, where the corrected hazard ratio is larger than the naive estimate, although confidence intervals are wide and overlapping.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the misclassification matrix $\Pi$ and its estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ given in equation (9), where each entry is the probability that a covariate drawn from cluster $j$ is assigned by the hard clustering rule $\hat{h}(z)$ to cluster $i$. This matrix, together with the mcsimex extrapolation algorithm developed by Kuchenhoff and colleagues, carries the argument: it quantifies the label noise and simulates increasingly misclassified labels, then extrapolates back to the zero-noise setting. The validity of the whole workflow rests on $\hat{\Pi}$ being a consistent estimate of the true misclassification mechanism.

What would settle it

Simulate data where the true class labels are generated by a mechanism different from the fitted Gaussian mixture model, such as hierarchical clustering on non-Gaussian or heavy-tailed distributions, and check whether the mcsimex-corrected estimates still achieve nominal coverage; the paper's k-means imbalance results suggest coverage will degrade, providing a concrete test of the assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that when an outcome is regressed on class labels inferred by unsupervised clustering, the naive estimator of the effect parameter is biased, and the bias does not vanish with increasing sample size. The paper establishes that the bias can be redressed by applying mcsimex, with the misclassification matrix consistently estimated from the fitted clustering model via equation (7). In simulations with Gaussian mixture models, the mcsimex correction reduces bias from roughly 0.7 to about 0.15 for the class effect and restores coverage from near zero to around 90 percent in both logistic and Cox regression settings. The paper also documents that the correction is less effective when the clustering model is misspecified, as with k-means on imbalanced clusters, and that the jackknife variance estimator in the simex package underestimates uncertainty, prompting a bootstrap alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The correction works only if the misclassification matrix estimated from the fitted clustering model matches how the labels were actually misclassified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, then prior biomarker studies that regressed survival or response on unsupervised cluster labels may have reported biased effect estimates and overly narrow confidence intervals, and those results should be revisited.
The mcsimex workflow offers a general correction that applies to any regression model supported by the simex framework, now extended to Cox proportional hazards models, making it usable across a wide range of clinical and genomic applications.
The corrected hazard ratio in the multiple myeloma application (roughly 3.1 vs 2.5) suggests that the true association between the high-risk cluster and survival may be stronger than the naive analysis indicated.
For clustering algorithms other than Gaussian mixture models, the user must ensure that a reliable misclassification matrix can be estimated; the paper shows k-means can fail when clusters are imbalanced.
Researchers should prefer a bootstrap or asymptotic variance estimate over the jackknife, since the jackknife underestimates uncertainty and leads to coverage below the nominal level.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension would be to apply the same mcsimex correction to other clustering algorithms, such as hierarchical clustering with a data-driven dissimilarity, by estimating the misclassification matrix from the empirical confusion between the fitted clusters and a validation set with known labels.
The bias documented here likely generalizes to any two-stage pipeline where an unsupervised model is fitted first and its discrete outputs are used as covariates, including cluster-then-predict approaches in personalized medicine, so the correction could have broad applicability beyond the examples shown.
The paper's reliance on a correctly specified Gaussian mixture model suggests that the method's performance degrades gracefully but not uniformly; the k-means imbalance result hints that misspecification of the clustering model is the dominant source of residual bias after correction.
If the misclassification matrix is estimated from the same data that produced the clusters, the bootstrap procedure used in the application properly accounts for the extra uncertainty, but it doubles the computational cost; an asymptotic variance formula for Cox models would be a valuable future contribution.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The genuine contribution is narrow and real: this paper takes the existing mcsimex estimator and points it at the common workflow where a biologist clusters first and then regresses an outcome on the cluster labels, with the misclassification matrix estimated from the fitted Gaussian mixture via eq. (7). The logistic simulations support the claim that this redresses bias and recovers coverage when the clustering model is a GMM. Extending the simex R package to coxph and shipping the code and repository is also concrete good. This is the first mcsimex application to unsupervised labels I know of, and it fills a software gap. The citation pattern is appropriate; no sign of self-citation inflation.

Soft spots, in proportion:

1. Tables 1 and 2 promise k-means with simex, but no k-means simex column appears. The text says k-means simex is poorer, but the numbers are missing. That needs fixing.

2. Section 3.1 says results are summarized by bias, MSE, and coverage, but the tables show only bias and coverage. Either delete the MSE promise or report it.

3. The nondifferential misclassification assumption — label errors independent of outcome — is never stated. For mcsimex this is load-bearing, and a reader needs it explicit.

4. The Cox simulations in Table 3 use true binary labels corrupted by known noise, not labels produced by unsupervised clustering. They validate mcsimex in Cox models, but not the full two-stage workflow.

5. The application's bootstrap matrix is the real weak point. It compares bootstrap GMM labels to full-data GMM labels, which estimates clustering instability under parameter re-estimation, not P(H*|H) relative to the latent biological subtype. The full-data GMM labels themselves only agree with Zhan's classes in 90% of cases; if the true label error is larger than the reported 0.07 and 0.13, the correction is incomplete. The hazard ratio shift from 2.55 to 3.15 may partly reflect correcting for sampling variability of the clustering fit rather than misclassification. The consistency argument in Section 2.2 does not cover this estimation strategy.

That said, the central argument for the GMM-label logistic setting holds up. These issues are addressable, not fatal. The paper is honestly written and reproducible.

Who is it for: biomarker methodologists doing clustering-then-regression, and measurement-error readers who want a competent case study. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should send it back for the missing k-means simex results and MSE table, and should ask the authors to either fix the application's misclassification-matrix estimator or reframe the survival result as sensitivity analysis rather than correction.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies regression of an outcome on class labels obtained by unsupervised clustering, treating the clusters as misclassified surrogates of latent classes. The authors specify a Gaussian mixture model for the covariates (Section 2.1), estimate the misclassification matrix by plug-in integration over the fitted mixture (Eq. 7), and propose the mcsimex algorithm to reduce bias in a subsequent GLM or Cox regression. Simulation studies for logistic regression (Section 3.1) and Cox regression (Section 3.2) are reported, together with an application to multiple myeloma survival using GMM labels approximating the hierarchical clusters of Zhan et al. (2006) (Section 4). The paper also describes an extension of the R simex package to coxph objects.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practical and general two-stage correction that preserves the common workflow of first clustering and then regressing. The extension of mcsimex to Cox models and the public code are concrete contributions. The simulation evidence supports the claim that, when the misclassification matrix is a consistent estimate of the label error mechanism, mcsimex reduces bias and improves coverage for logistic regression; the Cox simulations with known misclassification rates show improvement as well. The central limitation is that the application in Section 4 uses a bootstrap-derived matrix that estimates a different quantity, so the applied correction is not covered by the consistency argument of Section 2.2. With revision to close that gap and to report the missing k-means simex results, the paper would be a useful addition.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Table 5] The misclassification matrix used in the data application is not the estimator of Eq. (7) and does not estimate P(H*|H) as defined in Eq. (3). The bootstrap procedure compares the class predicted by the in-bag GMM fit with the class obtained from the full-data GMM fit for out-of-bag observations, so it measures the instability of the fitted clustering rule under parameter re-estimation rather than the probability that the full-data GMM label differs from the latent biological subtype. Since the full-data GMM labels themselves only agree with the original hierarchical classes in 90% of cases (Table 4), the reported rates 0.07 and 0.13 may understate the true label error. The increase in hazard ratio from 2.55 (naive) to 3.15 (mcsimex) can therefore not be unambiguously attributed to correction for misclassification. Section 3.2 also does not simulate this full two-stage workflow: its Cox simulations contaminate labels with a known misclassification matrix and do not fit a clustering model first.
[Section 3.1, Tables 1 and 2] The displayed results do not contain the k-means simex results that the text appears to reference. The Kmeans panels have columns True and Naive only, while the Simex columns appear only under GMM. The statements that using the simex approach improves bias and coverage and that for k-means the simex approach cannot fully correct for the added noise are therefore not supported by any visible simulation. If the k-means simex results were omitted from the tables, they need to be shown or the corresponding claims should be removed. The text also says results are summarized by bias, mean-square error, and coverage, but no MSE values appear in Tables 1 or 2.
[Section 2.3, Eq. (8) and Algorithm] The definition G(λ)=β(Π^(1+λ)) with extrapolation to λ=-1 is inconsistent with the algorithm's base point λ0=1. If λ0=1 is used as the naive estimator, then G(1) would equal β(Π^2), not β(Π), under Eq. (8); alternatively, if the algorithm's λ is shifted by one relative to Eq. (8), the extrapolation target should be λ=0, not λ=-1. The manuscript should state the convention unambiguously, because the simulation levels and extrapolation point determine the estimator.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, last paragraph] There is a typo in 'the the mcsimex method'; it should be 'the mcsimex method'.
[Section 3.2] The word 'binominal' should be 'binomial'.
[Section 6] The word 'accomodate' should be 'accommodate'.
[Throughout] The spelling 'Kmeans' is used inconsistently; the text should consistently use 'k-means'.
[Section 4] The description of the 'average misclassification matrix' from 1000 bootstraps is brief; it should specify whether the average is taken entrywise over the bootstrap matrices or is obtained from a single averaged model, and how the reported 0.07 and 0.13 rates are derived from the 7-class confusion structure after collapsing to two risk groups.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mcsimex correction is estimated from covariates and the clustering model, not from the outcome, and the extrapolation theory is external.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The misclassification matrix in eq. (7) is estimated from the fitted Gaussian mixture model and the hard clustering rule, not from the outcome Y. It targets the quantity πij = P(H* = i | H = j) defined in eq. (3), where H* is the observed cluster label produced by the clustering algorithm. The naive regression estimate is then corrected by mcsimex using the extrapolation function G(λ) = β(Π^(1+λ)) and the algorithm of Küchenhoff et al. (2006), which is an external, non-self-cited source. In the simulations, the corrected estimates are compared against the true β used to generate the outcome, so the reported bias reductions are empirical results, not tautologies. The k-means case is explicitly acknowledged as misspecified (Section 3.1: 'since we used the fitted k-means clusters to infer the misclassification matrix this also becomes misspecified'), showing that the authors do not claim the correction works regardless of the estimated matrix. The main validity concern in the application (Section 4) is that the bootstrap misclassification matrix is obtained by comparing in-bag GMM predictions to full-data GMM labels, which estimates clustering instability rather than P(H*|H) relative to the true biological subtype. That is a potential bias or incompleteness issue, but it is not circular: the reported mcsimex hazard ratio (3.15) is not equal by construction to the naive estimate (2.55) or to any fitted input; it is produced by an external extrapolation procedure. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard measurement-error model, not on new postulates. The main burden is the estimated misclassification matrix and the nondifferential error assumption, both inherited from the mcsimex framework.

free parameters (2)

Misclassification matrix (off-diagonal probabilities) = e.g. 0.07 low-risk, 0.13 high-risk in multiple myeloma application
Estimated from the fitted clustering model (eq. 7) and used as the input to mcsimex. The correction's success depends on this matrix accurately describing label errors; in the application it is estimated from a GMM approximation to hierarchical clustering.
mcsimex extrapolation coefficients gamma0, gamma1, gamma2 = fit by least squares per simulation or analysis
The quadratic approximation to G(lambda) is fit to Monte Carlo simulated values of the regression coefficient; extrapolation to lambda = -1 depends on this parametric choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Misclassification is nondifferential: Y is independent of H* given the true class H.
Required by the mcsimex setup; the outcome model (4) conditions only on H, and the misclassification model (2) does not involve Y. If cluster labels carry outcome information beyond the class, the correction is not valid. Not stated explicitly in the paper.
domain assumption The fitted Gaussian mixture model and the hard clustering rule correctly describe the label-generating process, so the estimated misclassification matrix in eq. (7) is consistent.
The estimator integrates over estimated class densities; if the GMM is misspecified, as it is when approximating hierarchical clustering (Table 4 shows 0.9 accuracy), the estimated misclassification matrix is not the true one.
domain assumption The parametric extrapolation function G(lambda, gamma), e.g. quadratic, approximates the true G(lambda) well enough over the range from lambda = -1 to lambda_k.
mcsimex extrapolates to lambda = -1 using a finite-dimensional approximation; Section 2.3 states this is relied upon.
standard math The matrix power Pi^lambda exists and remains a misclassification matrix for lambda >= 0, via spectral decomposition.
Used in eq. (8); existence criteria are cited to Kuechenhoff et al. (2006), not proved here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regression on imperfect class labels derived by unsupervised clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3YZR2FG

@misc{pith2026190805885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regression on imperfect class labels derived by unsupervised clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3YZR2FG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05885}
}

read the original abstract

Outcome regressed on class labels identified by unsupervised clustering is custom in many applications. However, it is common to ignore the misclassification of class labels caused by the learning algorithm, which potentially leads to serious bias of the estimated effect parameters. Due to its generality we suggest to redress the situation by use of the simulation and extrapolation method. Performance is illustrated by simulated data from Gaussian mixture models. Finally, we apply our method to a study which regressed overall survival on class labels derived from unsupervised clustering of gene expression data from bone marrow samples of multiple myeloma patients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05885 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

O., and Staudt, L

Brown, P. O., and Staudt, L. M. (2000). Distinct types of diﬀuse large B-cell lymphoma identiﬁed by gene expression proﬁling. Nature, 403(6769):503–11

work page 2000
[2]

S., Patel, M

Bang, H., Chiu, Y.-L., Kaufman, J. S., Patel, M. D., Heiss, G., and Rose, K. M. (2013). Bias Correction Methods for Misclassiﬁed Covariates in the Cox Model: Comparison of Five Correction Methods by Simulation and Data Analysis. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice , 7(2):381–400. Brakenhoﬀ, T. B., Mitroiu, M., Keogh, R. H., Moons, K. G., Groenwold,...

work page 2013
[3]

Broyl, A., Hose, D., Lokhorst, H., de Knegt, Y., Peeters, J., Jauch, A., Bertsch, U., Buijs, A., Stevens-Kroef, M., Berna Beverloo, H., Vellenga, E., Zweegman, S., Kersten, M.-J., van der Holt, B., el Jarari, L., Mulligan, G., Goldschmidt, H., van Duin, M., and Sonneveld, P. (2010). Gene expression proﬁling for molecular classiﬁcation of multiple myeloma ...

work page 2010
[4]

Carroll, R., Ruppert, D., Stefanski, L., and Crainiceanu, C. (2006). Mea- surement Error in Nonlinear Models . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, second edition

work page 2006
[5]

J., K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lombard, F., and Stefanski, L

Carroll, R. J., K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lombard, F., and Stefanski, L. A. (1996). Asymp- totics for the SIMEX estimator in nonlinear measurement error models. Jour- nal of the American Statistical Association , 91(433):242–250

work page 1996
[6]

J., Maca, J

Carroll, R. J., Maca, J. D., and Ruppert, D. (1999). Nonparametric regression in the presence of measurement error. Biometrika, 86(3):541–554

work page 1999
[7]

R., Chu, H., and Greenland, S

Cole, S. R., Chu, H., and Greenland, S. (2006). Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correction. International Journal of Epidemiology , 35(4):1074–1081

work page 2006
[8]

Cook, J. R. and Stefanski, L. A. (1994). Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428):1314–1328

work page 1994

Show all 27 references

[9]

M., and Irizarry, R

Gautier, L., Cope, L., Bolstad, B. M., and Irizarry, R. A. (2004). aﬀy—analysis of aﬀymetrix genechip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics, 20(3):307–315

2004
[10]

P., Sadanandam, A., Wessels, L., Delorenzi, M., Kopetz, S., Vermeulen, L., and Tejpar, S

Puig, P., Medema, J. P., Sadanandam, A., Wessels, L., Delorenzi, M., Kopetz, S., Vermeulen, L., and Tejpar, S. (2015). The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nature Medicine, 21(11):1350–156. 13 Hui Xiong, Junjie Wu, and Jian Chen (2009). K-Means Clustering Ver...

2015
[11]

K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lederer, W., and Lesaﬀre, E

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) , 39(2):318–331. K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lederer, W., and Lesaﬀre, E. (2007). Asymptotic variance estimation for the misclassiﬁcation SIMEX. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51(12):6197–6211. K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Mwalili, S. M....

2007
[12]

S., Rao, K

Kumar, N. S., Rao, K. N., Govardhan, A., Reddy, K. S., and Mahmood, A. M. (2014). Undersampled $$K$$ K -means approach for handling imbalanced distributed data. Progress in Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 3(1):29–38

2014
[13]

Lederer, W., Seibold, H., and K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H. (2017). simex: SIMEX- and MCSIMEX-algorithm for measurement error models

2017
[14]

Liang, J., Bai, L., Dang, C., and Cao, F. (2012). TheK-Means-Type Algorithms Versus Imbalanced Data Distributions. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(4):728–745

2012
[15]

and Nelder, J

McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, second edition

1989
[16]

Morrissey, M. J. and Spiegelman, D. (1999). Matrix methods for estimating odds ratios with misclassiﬁed exposure data: extensions and comparisons. Biometrics, 55(2):338–344

1999
[17]

Nakamura, T. (1990). Corrected score function for errors-in-variables mod- els: methodology and application to generalized linear models. Biometrika, 77(1):127–137

1990
[18]

M., Tamimi, R

Nevo, D., Zucker, D. M., Tamimi, R. M., and Wang, M. (2016). Accounting for measurement error in biomarker data and misclassiﬁcation of subtypes in the analysis of tumor data. Statistics in Medicine , 35(30):5686–5700

2016
[19]

C., and Spiegelman, D

Rosner, B., Willett, W. C., and Spiegelman, D. (1989). Correction of logis- tic regression relative risk estimates and conﬁdence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error. Statistics in Medicine , 8(9):1051–1069

1989
[20]

B., and Raftery, A

Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B., and Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: clustering, classiﬁcation and density estimation using Gaussian ﬁnite mixture models. The R Journal , 8(1):205–233

2016
[21]

and Rabe-Hesketh, S

Skrondal, A. and Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable model- ing : multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida. 14

2004
[22]

J., and Kipnis, V

Spiegelman, D., Carroll, R. J., and Kipnis, V. (2001). Eﬃcient regression cali- bration for logistic regression in main study/internal validation study designs with an imperfect reference instrument. Statistics in Medicine, 20(1):139–160

2001
[23]

Therneau, T. M. (2015). A package for survival analysis in S

2015
[24]

Therneau, T. M. and Grambsch, P. M. (2000). Modeling Survival Data: Ex- tending the Cox Model . Springer, New York

2000
[25]

Veer, L. J. V., Dai, H., Vijver, M. J. V. D., Schreiber, G. J., Kerkhoven, R. M., Roberts, C., Linsley, P. S., Bernards, R., and Friend, S. H. (2002). Gene expression proﬁling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature, 415(6871):530–536

2002
[26]

White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood of misspeciﬁed models. Econometrica, 50(1):1–25

1982
[27]

Barlogie, B., and Shaughnessy, J. D. (2006). The molecular classiﬁcation of multiple myeloma. Blood, 108(6):2020–8. 15

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

O., and Staudt, L

Brown, P. O., and Staudt, L. M. (2000). Distinct types of diﬀuse large B-cell lymphoma identiﬁed by gene expression proﬁling. Nature, 403(6769):503–11

work page 2000

[2] [2]

S., Patel, M

Bang, H., Chiu, Y.-L., Kaufman, J. S., Patel, M. D., Heiss, G., and Rose, K. M. (2013). Bias Correction Methods for Misclassiﬁed Covariates in the Cox Model: Comparison of Five Correction Methods by Simulation and Data Analysis. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice , 7(2):381–400. Brakenhoﬀ, T. B., Mitroiu, M., Keogh, R. H., Moons, K. G., Groenwold,...

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Broyl, A., Hose, D., Lokhorst, H., de Knegt, Y., Peeters, J., Jauch, A., Bertsch, U., Buijs, A., Stevens-Kroef, M., Berna Beverloo, H., Vellenga, E., Zweegman, S., Kersten, M.-J., van der Holt, B., el Jarari, L., Mulligan, G., Goldschmidt, H., van Duin, M., and Sonneveld, P. (2010). Gene expression proﬁling for molecular classiﬁcation of multiple myeloma ...

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Carroll, R., Ruppert, D., Stefanski, L., and Crainiceanu, C. (2006). Mea- surement Error in Nonlinear Models . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, second edition

work page 2006

[5] [5]

J., K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lombard, F., and Stefanski, L

Carroll, R. J., K¨ uchenhoﬀ, H., Lombard, F., and Stefanski, L. A. (1996). Asymp- totics for the SIMEX estimator in nonlinear measurement error models. Jour- nal of the American Statistical Association , 91(433):242–250

work page 1996

[6] [6]

J., Maca, J

Carroll, R. J., Maca, J. D., and Ruppert, D. (1999). Nonparametric regression in the presence of measurement error. Biometrika, 86(3):541–554

work page 1999

[7] [7]

R., Chu, H., and Greenland, S

Cole, S. R., Chu, H., and Greenland, S. (2006). Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correction. International Journal of Epidemiology , 35(4):1074–1081

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Cook, J. R. and Stefanski, L. A. (1994). Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428):1314–1328

work page 1994