A Bayesian destructive weighted Poisson cure rate model and an application to a cutaneous melanoma data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we propose a new Bayesian flexible cure rate survival model, which generalises the stochastic model of Klebanov et al. [Klebanov LB, Rachev ST and Yakovlev AY. A stochastic-model of radiation carcinogenesis--latent time distributions and their properties. Math Biosci 1993; 113: 51-75], and has much in common with the destructive model formulated by Rodrigues et al. [Rodrigues J, de Castro M, Balakrishnan N and Cancho VG. Destructive weighted Poisson cure rate models. Technical Report, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos-SP. Brazil, 2009 (accepted in Lifetime Data Analysis)]. In our approach, the accumulated number of lesions or altered cells follows a compound weighted Poisson distribution. This model is more flexible than the promotion time cure model in terms of dispersion. Moreover, it possesses an interesting and realistic interpretation of the biological mechanism of the occurrence of the event of interest as it includes a destructive process of tumour cells after an initial treatment or the capacity of an individual exposed to irradiation to repair altered cells that results in cancer induction. In other words, what is recorded is only the damaged portion of the original number of altered cells not eliminated by the treatment or repaired by the repair system of an individual. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are then used to develop Bayesian inference for the proposed model. Also, some discussions on the model selection and an illustration with a cutaneous melanoma data set analysed by Rodrigues et al. [Rodrigues J, de Castro M, Balakrishnan N and Cancho VG. Destructive weighted Poisson cure rate models. Technical Report, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos-SP. Brazil, 2009 (accepted in Lifetime Data Analysis)] are presented.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".