A generalized Fleming and Harrington's class of tests for interval‐censored data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The class $G^{\rho,\lambda }$ of weighted log‐rank tests proposed by Fleming & Harrington [Fleming & Harrington (1991) Counting Processes and Survival Analysis , Wiley, New York] has been widely used in survival analysis and is nowadays, unquestionably, the established method to compare, nonparametrically, k different survival functions based on right‐censored survival data. This paper extends the $G^{\rho,\lambda }$ class to interval‐censored data. First we introduce a new general class of rank based tests, then we show the analogy to the above proposal of Fleming & Harrington. The asymptotic behaviour of the proposed tests is derived using an observed Fisher information approach and a permutation approach. Aiming to make this family of tests interpretable and useful for practitioners, we explain how to interpret different choices of weights and we apply it to data from a cohort of intravenous drug users at risk for HIV infection. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 501–516; 2012 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".