MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993793629 · doi:10.1002/sim.3807

Bootstrap‐based methods for estimating standard errors in Cox's regression analyses of clustered event times

2010· article· en· W1993793629 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongling Xiao, Michał Abrahamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsStatisticsProportional hazards modelRegressionEvent (particle physics)Regression analysisComputer scienceStandard errorEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose two bootstrap-based methods to correct the standard errors (SEs) from Cox's model for within-cluster correlation of right-censored event times. The cluster-bootstrap method resamples, with replacement, only the clusters, whereas the two-step bootstrap method resamples (i) the clusters, and (ii) individuals within each selected cluster, with replacement. In simulations, we evaluate both methods and compare them with the existing robust variance estimator and the shared gamma frailty model, which are available in statistical software packages. We simulate clustered event time data, with latent cluster-level random effects, which are ignored in the conventional Cox's model. For cluster-level covariates, both proposed bootstrap methods yield accurate SEs, and type I error rates, and acceptable coverage rates, regardless of the true random effects distribution, and avoid serious variance under-estimation by conventional Cox-based standard errors. However, the two-step bootstrap method over-estimates the variance for individual-level covariates. We also apply the proposed bootstrap methods to obtain confidence bands around flexible estimates of time-dependent effects in a real-life analysis of cluster event times.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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