Estimating survival probabilities by exposure levels: utilizing vital statistics and complex survey data with mortality follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a two-step approach for estimating hazard rates and, consequently, survival probabilities, by levels of general categorical exposure. The resulting estimator utilizes three sources of data: vital statistics data and census data are used at the first step to estimate the overall hazard rate for a given combination of gender and age group, and cohort data constructed from a nationally representative complex survey with linked mortality records, are used at the second step to divide the overall hazard rate by exposure levels. We present an explicit expression for the resulting estimator and consider two methods for variance estimation that account for complex multistage sample design: (1) the leaving-one-out jackknife method, and (2) the Taylor linearization method, which provides an analytic formula for the variance estimator. The methods are illustrated with smoking and all-cause mortality data from the US National Health Interview Survey Linked Mortality Files, and the proposed estimator is compared with a previously studied crude hazard rate estimator that uses survey data only. The advantages of a two-step approach and possible extensions of the proposed estimator are discussed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".