MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088951854 · doi:10.1080/03610920601076933

Estimation for Location-Scale Models with Censored Data

2007· article· en· W2088951854 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuewen Lu, R. S. Singh, Anthony F. Desmond

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)EstimatorMathematicsM-estimatorStatisticsAsymptotic distributionDelta methodRestricted maximum likelihoodEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers a class of estimators for the location and scale parameters in the location-scale model based on ‘synthetic data’ when the observations are randomly censored on the right. The asymptotic normality of the estimators is established using counting process and martingale techniques when the censoring distribution is known and unknown, respectively. In the case when the censoring distribution is known, we show that the asymptotic variances of this class of estimators depend on the data transformation and have a lower bound which is not achievable by this class of estimators. However, in the case that the censoring distribution is unknown and estimated by the Kaplan–Meier estimator, this class of estimators has the same asymptotic variance and attains the lower bound for variance for the case of known censoring distribution. This is different from censored regression analysis, where asymptotic variances depend on the data transformation. Our method has three valuable advantages over the method of maximum likelihood estimation. First, our estimators are available in a closed form and do not require an iterative algorithm. Second, simulation studies show that our estimators being moment-based are comparable to maximum likelihood estimators and outperform them when sample size is small and censoring rate is high. Third, our estimators are more robust to model misspecification than maximum likelihood estimators. Therefore, our method can serve as a competitive alternative to the method of maximum likelihood in estimation for location-scale models with censored data. A numerical example is presented to illustrate the proposed method.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207