MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966407078 · doi:10.1081/sta-200063317

Smoothing Techniques for the Bivariate Kaplan–Meier Estimator

2005· article· en· W1966407078 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorBivariate analysisMathematicsSmoothingKaplan–Meier estimatorSurvival functionStatisticsCensoring (clinical trials)UnivariateKernel smootherEconometricsApplied mathematicsKernel methodComputer scienceMultivariate statisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Bivariate survival time data arise quite often in medical research, and many estimators for the bivariate survival function have been suggested. While there are a lot of smooth estimators for the univariate Kaplan–Meier estimator, smooth versions of bivariate Kaplan–Meier estimator are not discussed yet. In this article, we suggest two smoothing techniques, the kernel smoothing and the Bezier surface smoothing, for the bivariate survival function estimator, especially for the estimator suggested by Lin and Ying (1993 Lin , D. Y. , Ying , Z. ( 1993 ). A simple nonparametric estimator of the bivariate survival function under univariate censoring . Biometrika 80 : 573 – 581 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Also, asymptotic results for both estimators are derived. Throughout the simulation studies, the Bezier surface smoothing turned out to be very efficient compared to the bivariate Kaplan–Meier estimator and the kernel smoothing estimator. An illustrative example based on a real data set is also given.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.392 · 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