MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967858306 · doi:10.1191/0962280203sm335ra

Fitting competing risks with an assumed copula

2003· article· en· W1967858306 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

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)IdentifiabilityEconometricsMarginal distributionParametric statisticsBivariate analysisMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceParametric modelMathematicsStatisticsRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a fully parametric model for the analysis of competing risks data where the types of failure may not be independent. We show how the dependence between the cause-specific survival times can be modelled with a copula function. Features include: identifiability of the problem; accessible understanding of the dependence structures; and flexibility in choosing marginal survival functions. The model is constructed in such a way that it allows us to adjust for concomitant variables and for a dependence parameter to assess the effects of these on each marginal survival model and on the relationship between the causes of death. The methods are applied to a prostate cancer data set. We find that, with the copula model, more accurate inferences are obtained than with the use of a simpler model such as the independent competing risks approach.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.446
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.446
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.529
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.141 · 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