MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2004· article· en· W2046249327 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Scheike, Torben Martinussen

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207