MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922077132 · doi:10.1002/sim.6972

Joint modelling of longitudinal and multi‐state processes: application to clinical progressions in prostate cancer

2016· article· en· W1922077132 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsProstate cancerCovariateLongitudinal dataRandom effects modelProportional hazards modelLongitudinal studyJoint (building)Baseline (sea)Prostate-specific antigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joint modelling of longitudinal and survival data is increasingly used in clinical trials on cancer. In prostate cancer for example, these models permit to account for the link between longitudinal measures of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and time of clinical recurrence when studying the risk of relapse. In practice, multiple types of relapse may occur successively. Distinguishing these transitions between health states would allow to evaluate, for example, how PSA trajectory and classical covariates impact the risk of dying after a distant recurrence post-radiotherapy, or to predict the risk of one specific type of clinical recurrence post-radiotherapy, from the PSA history. In this context, we present a joint model for a longitudinal process and a multi-state process, which is divided into two sub-models: a linear mixed sub-model for longitudinal data and a multi-state sub-model with proportional hazards for transition times, both linked by a function of shared random effects. Parameters of this joint multi-state model are estimated within the maximum likelihood framework using an EM algorithm coupled with a quasi-Newton algorithm in case of slow convergence. It is implemented under R, by combining and extending mstate and JM packages. The estimation program is validated by simulations and applied on pooled data from two cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer. Thanks to the classical covariates available at baseline and the repeated PSA measurements, we are able to assess the biomarker's trajectory, define the risks of transitions between health states and quantify the impact of the PSA dynamics on each transition intensity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207