MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexible Maximum Likelihood Methods for Bivariate Proportional Hazards Models

2003· article· en· W2020076894 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.193
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