On the incidence–prevalence relation and length‐biased sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For many diseases, logistic constraints render large incidence studies difficult to carry out. This becomes a drawback, particularly when a new study is needed each time the incidence rate is investigated in a new population. By carrying out a prevalent cohort study with follow‐up it is possible to estimate the incidence rate if it is constant. The authors derive the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the overall incidence rate, λ, as well as age‐specific incidence rates, by exploiting the epidemiologic relationship, (prevalence odds) = (incidence rate) × (mean duration) (P/[1 − P] = λ × µ). The authors establish the asymptotic distributions of the MLEs and provide approximate confidence intervals for the parameters. Moreover, the MLE of λ is asymptotically most efficient and is the natural estimator obtained by substituting the marginal maximum likelihood estimators for P and µ into P/[1 − P] = λ × µ. Following‐up the subjects allows the authors to develop these widely applicable procedures. The authors apply their methods to data collected as part of the Canadian Study of Health and Ageing to estimate the incidence rate of dementia amongst elderly Canadians. The Canadian Journal of Statistics © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.119 | 0.495 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".