MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830111894 · doi:10.1111/biom.12302

Penalized regression for interval‐censored times of disease progression: Selection of HLA markers in psoriatic arthritis

2015· article· en· W1830111894 on OpenAlexafffund
Ying Wu, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsoriatic arthritisLasso (programming language)MedicineDiseaseRegressionCohortConfidence intervalArthritisInternal medicineStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Times of disease progression are interval-censored when progression status is only known at a series of assessment times. This situation arises routinely in clinical trials and cohort studies when events of interest are only detectable upon imaging, based on blood tests, or upon careful clinical examination. We consider the problem of selecting important prognostic biomarkers from a large set of candidates when disease progression status is only known at irregularly spaced and individual-specific assessment times. Penalized regression techniques (e.g., LASSO, adaptive LASSO, and SCAD) are adapted to handle interval-censored time of disease progression. An expectation-maximization algorithm is described which is empirically shown to perform well. Application to the motivating study of the development of arthritis mutilans in patients with psoriatic arthritis is given and several important human leukocyte antigen (HLA) variables are identified for further investigation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207