Analysis of interval‐censored disease progression data via multi‐state models under a nonignorable inspection process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irreversible multi-state models provide a convenient framework for characterizing disease processes that arise when the states represent the degree of organ or tissue damage incurred by a progressive disease. In many settings, however, individuals are only observed at periodic clinic visits and so the precise times of the transitions are not observed. If the life history and observation processes are not independent, the observation process contains information about the life history process, and more importantly, likelihoods based on the disease process alone are invalid. With interval-censored failure time data, joint models are nonidentifiable and data analysts must rely on sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of the dependent observation times. This paper is concerned, however, with the analysis of data from progressive multi-state disease processes in which individuals are scheduled to be seen at periodic pre-scheduled assessment times. We cast the problem in the framework used for incomplete longitudinal data problems. Maximum likelihood estimation via an EM algorithm is advocated for parameter estimation. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method works well under a variety of situations. Data from a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis are analyzed 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
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".