Proportional hazards models based on biased samples and estimated selection probabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In non‐randomized biomedical studies using the proportional hazards model, the data often constitute an unrepresentative sample of the underlying target population, which results in biased regression coefficients. The bias can be avoided by weighting included subjects by the inverse of their respective selection probabilities, as proposed by Horvitz & Thompson (1952) and extended to the proportional hazards setting for use in surveys by Binder (1992) and Lin (2000). In practice, the weights are often estimated and must be treated as such in order for the resulting inference to be accurate. The authors propose a two‐stage weighted proportional hazards model in which, at the first stage, weights are estimated through a logistic regression model fitted to a representative sample from the target population. At the second stage, a weighted Cox model is fitted to the biased sample. The authors propose estimators for the regression parameter and cumulative baseline hazard. They derive the asymptotic properties of the parameter estimators, accounting for the difference in the variance introduced by the randomness of the weights. They evaluate the accuracy of the asymptotic approximations in finite samples through simulation. They illustrate their approach in an analysis of renal transplant patients using data obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients
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 | 0.074 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".