MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian Approach for the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with Covariates Subject to Detection Limit

2014· article· en· W2005234338 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qingxia Chen, Huiyun Wu, Lorraine B. Ware, Tatsuki Koyama

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCovariateBayesian probabilityProportional hazards modelPoisson distributionStatisticsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Confidence intervalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research on biomarkers has been limited in its effectiveness because biomarker levels can only be measured within the thresholds of assays and laboratory instruments, a challenge referred to as a detection limit (DL) problem. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian approach to the Cox proportional hazards model with explanatory variables subject to lower, upper, or interval DLs. We demonstrate that by formulating the time-to-event outcome using the Poisson density with counting process notation, implementing the proposed approach in the OpenBUGS and JAGS is straightforward. We have conducted extensive simulations to compare the proposed Bayesian approach to the other four commonly used methods and to evaluate its robustness with respect to the distribution assumption of the biomarkers. The proposed Bayesian approach and other methods were applied to an acute lung injury study, in which a panel of cytokine biomarkers was studied for the biomarkers' association with ventilation-free survival.

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 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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.376
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.376
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.167 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207