MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060337608 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2014.920877

Permutation Methods for Comparing the Accuracy of Nested Prediction Models in Survival Analysis

2014· article· en· W2060337608 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyu Jiang, Nathalie C. Moon, Bingshu E. Chen, Dongsheng Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermutation (music)ResamplingCovariateComputer scienceSample size determinationComputationData miningStatisticsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When making patient-specific prediction, it is important to compare prediction models to evaluate the gain in prediction accuracy for including additional covariates. We propose two statistical testing methods, the complete data permutation (CDP) and the permutation cross-validation (PCV) for comparing prediction models. We simulate clinical trial settings extensively and show that both methods are robust and achieve almost correct test sizes; the methods have comparable power in moderate to large sample situations, while the CDP is more efficient in computation. The methods are also applied to ovarian cancer clinical trial data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.775
GPT teacher head0.671
Teacher spread0.103 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207