A Multiresolution Hazard Model for Multicenter Survival Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In multicenter studies, one often needs to make inference about a population survival curve based on multiple, possibly heterogeneous survival data from individual centers. We investigate a flexible Bayesian method for estimating a population survival curve based on a semiparametric multiresolution hazard model that can incorporate covariates and account for center heterogeneity. The method yields a smooth estimate of the survival curve for "multiple resolutions" or time scales of interest. The Bayesian model used has the capability to accommodate general forms of censoring and a priori smoothness assumptions. We develop a model checking and diagnostic technique based on the posterior predictive distribution and use it to identify departures from the model assumptions. The hazard estimator is used to analyze data from 110 centers that participated in a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate tamoxifen in the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Of particular interest are the estimates of center heterogeneity in the baseline hazard curves and in the treatment effects, after adjustment for a few key clinical covariates. Our analysis suggests that the treatment effect estimates are rather robust, even for a collection of small trial centers, despite variations in center 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 | 0.085 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".