MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083645524 · doi:10.1198/016214506000000951

A Multiresolution Hazard Model for Multicenter Survival Studies

2007· article· en· W2083645524 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Bouman, Xiao‐Li Meng, James J. Dignam, Vanja Dukić

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsHazard ratioHazardStatisticsEconometricsProportional hazards modelSurvival analysisComputer scienceMathematicsConfidence intervalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.328
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.328
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207