MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Cox's Regression Model Under Case–Cohort Sampling

2004· article· en· W2046249327 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

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAalborg Universitet
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsEstimatorProportional hazards modelCohortSampling (signal processing)Regression analysisSample size determinationMaximum likelihoodEconometricsMean squared errorComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Case–cohort sampling aims at reducing the data sampling and costs of large cohort studies. It is therefore important to estimate the parameters of interest as efficiently as possible. We present a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) for a case–cohort study based on the proportional hazards assumption. The estimator shows finite sample properties that improve on those by the Self & Prentice [Ann. Statist. 16 (1988)] estimator. The size of the gain by the MLE varies with the level of the disease incidence and the variability of the relative risk over the considered population. The gain tends to be small when the disease incidence is low. The MLE is found by a simple EM algorithm that is easy to implement. Standard errors are estimated by a profile likelihood approach based on EM‐aided differentiation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.318 · 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