MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexible Maximum Likelihood Methods for Bivariate Proportional Hazards Models

2003· article· en· W2020076894 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenqing He, Jerald F. Lawless

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBivariate analysisCensoring (clinical trials)MathematicsPiecewiseStatisticsParametric statisticsParametric modelCovariateEconometricsMaximum likelihoodApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents methodology for multivariate proportional hazards (PH) regression models. The methods employ flexible piecewise constant or spline specifications for baseline hazard functions in either marginal or conditional PH models, along with assumptions about the association among lifetimes. Because the models are parametric, ordinary maximum likelihood can be applied; it is able to deal easily with such data features as interval censoring or sequentially observed lifetimes, unlike existing semiparametric methods. A bivariate Clayton model (1978, Biometrika 65, 141-151) is used to illustrate the approach taken. Because a parametric assumption about association is made, efficiency and robustness comparisons are made between estimation based on the bivariate Clayton model and "working independence" methods that specify only marginal distributions for each lifetime variable.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207