MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981023657 · doi:10.1016/s0167-5877(03)00103-x

A demonstration of interval-censored survival analysis

2003· article· en· W1981023657 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

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)StatisticsSurvival analysisMathematicsInterval (graph theory)Confidence intervalParametric statisticsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interval-censoring occurs in survival analysis when the time until an event of interest is not known precisely (and instead, only is known to fall into a particular interval). Such censoring commonly is produced when periodic assessments (usually clinical or laboratory examinations) are used to assess if the event has occurred. My objectives were to raise awareness about interval-censoring including its existence, the potential ramifications of ignoring its existence, the different types of interval-censored data, and the analytical methods to analyze such data (including availability in standard statistical software). Asynchronous interval-censored survival analysis was demonstrated by parametric evaluation of risk factors for the time to first detected shedding of Salmonella muenster (identified by repeated periodic fecal cultures) for a herd of dairy cows. These results were compared with those from survival analyses which ignored or approximated the interval-censoring. Ignoring or approximating the asynchronous interval-censoring in the survival analysis generally resulted in the risk factors' regression coefficients having the same signs and a decrease (often >50%) in their absolute size. All the standard errors from the three methods of approximating the interval-censoring were <40% of their interval-censored counterparts. The conclusions drawn from the asynchronous interval-censored analysis versus those from the approximations varied dramatically. (The general conclusion from the approximations was that none of the risk factors for this example warranted further consideration.) That ignoring or approximating the left- and interval-censored nature of the dependent variable resulted in biased results was consistent with the literature. In the currently available asynchronous interval-censored models, the inclusion of time-dependent covariates that vary continuously is awkward. Statistical models for the semi-parametric estimation of asynchronous interval-censored survival analysis are not generally available in standard statistical software.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.272 · 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