MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518902857 · doi:10.1002/bimj.201400162

Analysis of interval‐censored recurrent event processes subject to resolution

2015· article· en· W1518902857 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)StatisticsPiecewiseEstimatorInterval (graph theory)EconometricsCounting processMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interval-censored recurrent event data arise when the event of interest is not readily observed but the cumulative event count can be recorded at periodic assessment times. In some settings, chronic disease processes may resolve, and individuals will cease to be at risk of events at the time of disease resolution. We develop an expectation-maximization algorithm for fitting a dynamic mover-stayer model to interval-censored recurrent event data under a Markov model with a piecewise-constant baseline rate function given a latent process. The model is motivated by settings in which the event times and the resolution time of the disease process are unobserved. The likelihood and algorithm are shown to yield estimators with small empirical bias in simulation studies. Data are analyzed on the cumulative number of damaged joints in patients with psoriatic arthritis where individuals experience disease remission.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it