A non‐parametric procedure for evaluating treatment effect in the meta‐analysis of survival data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of combining information from independent clinical trials which compare survival distributions of two treatment groups. Current meta-analytic methods which take censoring into account are often not feasible for meta-analyses which synthesize summarized results in published (or unpublished) references, as these methods require information usually not reported. The paper presents methodology which uses the log(-log) survival function difference, (i.e. log(-logS2(t))-log(-logS1(t)), as the contrast index to represent the multiplicative treatment effect on survival in independent trials. This article shows by the second mean value theorem for integrals that this contrast index, denoted as theta, is interpretable as a weighted average on a natural logarithmic scale of hazard ratios within the interval [0,t] in a trial. When the within-trial proportional hazards assumption is true, theta is the logarithm of the proportionality constant for the common hazard ratio for the interval considered within the trial. In this situation, an important advantage of using theta as a contrast index in the proposed methodology is that the estimation of theta is not affected by length of follow-up time. Other commonly used indices such as the odds ratio, risk ratio and risk differences do not have this invariance property under the proportional hazard model, since their estimation may be affected by length of follow-up time as a technical artefact. Thus, the proposed methodology obviates problems which often occur in survival meta-analysis because trials do not report survival at the same length of follow-up time. Even when the within-trial proportional hazards assumption is not realistic, the proposed methodology has the capability of testing a global null hypothesis of no multiplicative treatment effect on the survival distributions of two groups for all studies. A discussion of weighting schemes for meta-analysis is provided, in particular, a weighting scheme based on effective sample sizes is suggested for the meta-analysis of time-to-event data which involves censoring. A medical example illustrating the methodology is given. A simulation investigation suggested that the methodology performs well in the presence of moderate censoring.
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 | 0.221 | 0.408 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".