Estimation of prediction error for survival models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When statistical models are used to predict the values of unobserved random variables, loss functions are often used to quantify the accuracy of a prediction. The expected loss over some specified set of occasions is called the prediction error. This paper considers the estimation of prediction error when regression models are used to predict survival times and discusses the use of these estimates. Extending the previous work, we consider both point and confidence interval estimations of prediction error, and allow for variable selection and model misspecification. Different estimators are compared in a simulation study for an absolute relative error loss function, and results indicate that cross-validation procedures typically produce reliable point estimates and confidence intervals, whereas model-based estimates are sensitive to model misspecification. Links between performance measures for point predictors and for predictive distributions of survival times are also discussed. The methodology is illustrated in a medical setting involving survival after treatment for disease.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it