Time Scales in Epidemiological Analysis: An Empirical Comparison
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cox proportional hazards model is routinely used to analyze time-to-event data. This model requires the definition of a unique well-defined time scale. Most often, observation time is used as the time scale for both clinical and observational studies. Recently after a suggestion that it may be a more appropriate scale, chronological age has begun to appear as the time scale used in some reports. There appears to be no general consensus about which time scale is appropriate for any given analysis. It has been suggested that if the baseline hazard is exponential or if the age-at-entry is independent of covariates used in the model, then the two time scales provide similar results. In this report we provide an empirical examination of the results using the two different time scales using a large collection of data sets to examine the relationship between systolic blood pressure and coronary heart disease death. We demonstrate, in this empirical example that the two time-scales can sometimes lead to differing regression coefficient estimates but time-on-study model has better predictive ability in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it