Estimating and testing for center effects in competing risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problems of fitting Gaussian frailties proportional hazards models for the subdistribution of a competing risk and of testing for center effects are considered. In the analysis of competing risks data, Fine and Gray proposed a proportional hazards model for the subdistribution to directly assess the effects of covariates on the marginal failure probabilities of a given failure cause. Katsahianbiet al. extended their model to clustered time to event data, by including random center effects or frailties in the subdistribution hazard. We first introduce an alternate estimation procedure to the one proposed by Katsahian et al. This alternate estimation method is based on the penalized partial likelihood approach often used in fitting Gaussian frailty proportional hazards models in the standard survival analysis context, and has the advantage of using standard survival analysis software. Second, four hypothesis tests for the presence of center effects are given and compared via Monte-Carlo simulations. Statistical and numerical considerations lead us to formulate pragmatic guidelines as to which of the four tests is preferable. We also illustrate the proposed methodology with registry data from bone marrow transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
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 | 0.181 | 0.459 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".