A Semiparametric Model for the Analysis of Recurrent-Event Panel Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many longitudinal studies, interest focuses on the occurrence rate of some phenomenon for the subjects in the study. When the phenomenon is nonterminating and possibly recurring, the result is a recurrent-event data set. Examples include epileptic seizures and recurrent cancers. When the recurring event is detectable only by an expensive or invasive examination, only the number of events occurring between follow-up times may be available. This article presents a semiparametric model for such data, based on a multiplicative intensity model paired with a fully flexible nonparametric baseline intensity function. A random subject-specific effect is included in the intensity model to account for the overdispersion frequently displayed in count data. Estimators are determined from quasi-likelihood estimating functions. Because only first- and second-moment assumptions are required for quasi-likelihood, the method is more robust than those based on the specification of a full parametric likelihood. Consistency of the estimators depends only on the assumption of the proportional intensity model. The semiparametric estimators are shown to be highly efficient compared with the usual parametric estimators. As with semiparametric methods in survival analysis, the method provides useful diagnostics for specific parametric models, including a quasi-score statistic for testing specific baseline intensity functions. The techniques are used to analyze cancer recurrences and a pheromone-based mating disruption experiment in moths. A simulation study confirms that, for many practical situations, the estimators possess appropriate small-sample characteristics.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".