MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1739855993

Threshold-free Measure for Assessing the Performance of Risk Prediction with Censored Data

2015· article· en· W1739855993 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bingying Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)ResamplingReceiver operating characteristicStatisticsMetric (unit)InferenceComputer scienceConfidence intervalMathematicsPerformance metricEconometricsArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a popular threshold-free metric to retrospectively measure the discriminatory performance of medical tests. In risk prediction or medical screening, main interests often focus on accurately predicting the future risk of an event of interest or prospectively stratifying individuals into risk categories. Thus, AUC might not be optimal in assessing the predictive performance for such purposes. Alternative accuracy measures have been proposed, such as the positive predictive value (PPV). Yuan et al. (2015) proposed a threshold-free metric, the average positive predictive value (AP), which is the area under the PPV versus true positive fraction (TPF) curve, when the outcome is binary disease status. In this thesis, we propose the time-dependent AP when the outcome is censored event time. Empirical estimates of the time-dependent AP (AP_t0) are developed, where the inverse weighted probability technique is applied to deal with censoring. In addition, inference procedures — using bootstrap and perturbation resampling—are proposed to construct confidence intervals. We conduct simulation studies to investigate the performance of the proposed estimation and inference procedures in finite samples. The method is also illustrated through a real data analysis.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207