MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987856141 · doi:10.1002/sim.986

Maximum likelihood estimation of a survival function with a change point for truncated and interval‐censored data

2002· article· en· W1987856141 on OpenAlexaff
Hee‐Jeong Lim, Jianguo Sun, David E. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsInterval (graph theory)Point estimationEstimationMaximum likelihoodInterval estimationLikelihood functionSurvival functionSurvival analysisConfidence intervalEconometricsFunction (biology)MathematicsComputer scienceBiologyCombinatoricsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers estimation of a survival function when there exists a change point and the survival time of interest is defined as elapsed time between two related events. Furthermore, there exists censoring on observations on the occurrences of both events and truncation on observations on the occurrence of the second event and thus the survival time of interest. To obtain the maximum likelihood estimator of a survival function, an EM algorithm is developed when the survival function is completely unknown before the change point and known up to a vector of unknown parameters after the change point. The idea is a generalization of that discussed in Moeschberger and Klein. Simulations and an example are used to evaluate and illustrate the algorithm.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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