MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029739696 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2011.575505

Comparison of Selected Methods for Modeling of Multi-State Disease Progression Processes: A Simulation Study

2011· article· en· W2029739696 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateProportional hazards modelMarkov modelMarkov chainEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceEconometricsRegression analysisRegressionStatisticsType I and type II errorsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prognostic studies are essential to understand the role of particular prognostic factors and, thus, improve prognosis. In most studies, disease progression trajectories of individual patients may end up with one of mutually exclusive endpoints or can involve a sequence of different events. One challenge in such studies concerns separating the effects of putative prognostic factors on these different endpoints and testing the differences between these effects. In this article, we systematically evaluate and compare, through simulations, the performance of three alternative multivariable regression approaches in analyzing competing risks and multiple-event longitudinal data. The three approaches are: (1) fitting separate event-specific Cox's proportional hazards models; (2) the extension of Cox's model to competing risks proposed by Lunn and McNeil; and (3) Markov multi-state model. The simulation design is based on a prognostic study of cancer progression, and several simulated scenarios help investigate different methodological issues relevant to the modeling of multiple-event processes of disease progression. The results highlight some practically important issues. Specifically, the decreased precision of the observed timing of intermediary (non fatal) events has a strong negative impact on the accuracy of regression coefficients estimated with either the Cox's or Lunn-McNeil models, while the Markov model appears to be quite robust, under the same circumstances. Furthermore, the tests based on both Markov and Lunn-McNeil models had similar power for detecting a difference between the effects of the same covariate on the hazards of two mutually exclusive events. The Markov approach yields also accurate Type I error rate and good empirical power for testing the hypothesis that the effect of a prognostic factor on changes after an intermediary event, which cannot be directly tested with the Lunn-McNeil method. Bootstrap-based standard errors improve the coverage rates for Markov model estimates. Overall, the results of our simulations validate Markov multi-state model for a wide range of data structures encountered in prognostic studies of disease progression, and may guide end users regarding the choice of model(s) most appropriate for their specific application.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.006 · 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