Flexible modeling of competing risks in survival analysis
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
Prognostic studies often involve modeling competing risks, where an individual can experience only one of alternative events, and the goal is to estimate hazard functions and covariate effects associated with each event type. Lunn and McNeil proposed data manipulation that permits extending the Cox's proportional hazards model to estimate covariate effects on the hazard of each competing events. However, the hazard functions for competing events are assumed to remain proportional over the entire follow-up period, implying the same shape of all event-specific hazards, and covariate effects are restricted to also remain constant over time, even if such assumptions are often questionable. To avoid such limitations, we propose a flexible model to (i) obtain distinct estimates of the baseline hazard functions for each event type, and (ii) allow estimating time-dependent covariate effects in a parsimonious model. Our flexible competing risks regression model uses smooth cubic regression splines to model the time-dependent changes in (i) the ratio of event-specific baseline hazards, and (ii) the covariate effects. In simulations, we evaluate the performance of the proposed estimators and likelihood ratio tests, under different assumptions. We apply the proposed flexible model in a prognostic study of colorectal cancer mortality, with two competing events: 'death from colorectal cancer' and 'death from other causes'.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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