MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048608576 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12108

Efficient Estimation of the Partly Linear Additive Hazards Model with Current Status Data

2014· article· en· W2048608576 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuewen Lu, Peter X.‐K. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorAdditive modelNonparametric regressionPolynomial regressionNonparametric statisticsIsotonic regressionStatisticsEstimating equationsMathematical optimizationLinear modelApplied mathematicsRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper focuses on efficient estimation, optimal rates of convergence and effective algorithms in the partly linear additive hazards regression model with current status data. We use polynomial splines to estimate both cumulative baseline hazard function with monotonicity constraint and nonparametric regression functions with no such constraint. We propose a simultaneous sieve maximum likelihood estimation for regression parameters and nuisance parameters and show that the resultant estimator of regression parameter vector is asymptotically normal and achieves the semiparametric information bound. In addition, we show that rates of convergence for the estimators of nonparametric functions are optimal. We implement the proposed estimation through a backfitting algorithm on generalized linear models. We conduct simulation studies to examine the finite‐sample performance of the proposed estimation method and present an analysis of renal function recovery data for illustration.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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