MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005187726 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360309

Empirical likelihood inference for the regression model of mean quality‐adjusted lifetime with censored data

2008· article· en· W2005187726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yichuan Zhao, Hongkun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Security Agency
KeywordsEmpirical likelihoodStatisticsMathematicsCensoring (clinical trials)Regression analysisLikelihood-ratio testInferenceEconometricsConfidence intervalLikelihood principleLikelihood functionMaximum likelihoodComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors consider the empirical likelihood method for the regression model of mean quality‐adjusted lifetime with right censoring. They show that an empirical log‐likelihood ratio for the vector of the regression parameters is asymptotically a weighted sum of independent chi‐squared random variables. They adjust this empirical log‐likelihood ratio so that the limiting distribution is a standard chi‐square and construct corresponding confidence regions. Simulation studies lead them to conclude that empirical likelihood methods outperform the normal approximation methods in terms of coverage probability. They illustrate their methods with a data example from a breast cancer clinical trial study.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.264
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.264
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.409
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.013 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207