MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001820849 · doi:10.1002/bimj.200290000

An Empirical Comparison of Parametric and Semiparametric Cure Models

2002· article· en· W2001820849 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsSemiparametric regressionSemiparametric modelParametric statisticsCure rateEconometricsParametric modelEstimationNonparametric statisticsStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceMedicineEconomicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parametric and semiparametric cure models have been proposed for cure proportion estimation in cancer clinical research. In this paper, several parametric and semiparametric models are compared, and their estimation methods are discussed within the framework of the EM algorithm. We show that the semiparametric PH cure model can achieve efficiency levels similar to those of parametric cure models, provided that the failure time distribution is well specified and uncured patients have an increasing hazard rate. Therefore the semiparametric model is a viable alternative to parametric cure models. When the hazard rate of uncured patients is rapidly decreasing, the estimates from the semiparametric cure model tend to have large variations and biases. However, all other models also tend to have large variations and biases in this case.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.817
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.184 · 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