A generalized Fleming and Harrington's class of tests for interval‐censored data
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it