Empirical likelihood‐based confidence intervals for length‐biased data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logistic or other constraints often preclude the possibility of conducting incident cohort studies. A feasible alternative in such cases is to conduct a cross-sectional prevalent cohort study for which we recruit prevalent cases, that is, subjects who have already experienced the initiating event, say the onset of a disease. When the interest lies in estimating the lifespan between the initiating event and a terminating event, say death for instance, such subjects may be followed prospectively until the terminating event or loss to follow-up, whichever happens first. It is well known that prevalent cases have, on average, longer lifespans. As such, they do not constitute a representative random sample from the target population; they comprise a biased sample. If the initiating events are generated from a stationary Poisson process, the so-called stationarity assumption, this bias is called length bias. The current literature on length-biased sampling lacks a simple method for estimating the margin of errors of commonly used summary statistics. We fill this gap by using the empirical likelihood-based confidence intervals by adapting this method to right-censored length-biased survival data. Both large and small sample behaviors of these confidence intervals are studied. We illustrate our method by using a set of data on survival with dementia, collected as part of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging.
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 | 0.131 | 0.634 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".