MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087289223 · doi:10.1515/ijb-2012-0046

Exact Nonparametric Confidence Bands for the Survivor Function

2013· article· en· W2087289223 on OpenAlexaffabout
David E. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biostatistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalNonparametric statisticsStatisticsMathematicsEstimatorApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to produce exact simultaneous confidence bands for the empirical cumulative distribution function that was first described by Owen, and subsequently corrected by Jager and Wellner, is the starting point for deriving exact nonparametric confidence bands for the survivor function of any positive random variable. We invert a nonparametric likelihood test of uniformity, constructed from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the survivor function, to obtain simultaneous lower and upper bands for the function of interest with specified global confidence level. The method involves calculating a null distribution and associated critical value for each observed sample configuration. However, Noe recursions and the Van Wijngaarden-Decker-Brent root-finding algorithm provide the necessary tools for efficient computation of these exact bounds. Various aspects of the effect of right censoring on these exact bands are investigated, using as illustrations two observational studies of survival experience among non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients and a much larger group of subjects with advanced lung cancer enrolled in trials within the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Monte Carlo simulations confirm the merits of the proposed method of deriving simultaneous interval estimates of the survivor function across the entire range of the observed sample. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. It was begun while the author was visiting the Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, and completed during a subsequent sojourn at the Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit in Cambridge. The support of both institutions, in addition to that of NSERC and the University of Waterloo, is greatly appreciated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.302
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.302
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of BiostatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207