MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091819253 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11226

A semiparametric inverse‐Gaussian model and inference for survival data with a cured proportion

2014· article· en· W2091819253 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sangbum Choi, Xuelin Huang, Janice N. Cormier, Kjell A. Doksum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInverse Gaussian distributionMathematicsStatisticsApplied mathematicsEstimatorInferenceMixture modelSemiparametric regressionGaussian processEconometricsGaussianDistribution (mathematics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work focuses on a semiparametric analysis of a cure rate modelling approach based on a latent failure process. In clinical and epidemiological studies, a Wiener process with drift may represent a patient's health status and a clinical endpoint occurs when the process first reaches an adverse threshold state. The first‐hitting‐time then follows an inverse‐Gaussian distribution. On the basis of the improper inverse‐Gaussian distribution, we consider a process‐based lifetime model that allows for a positive probability of no event taking place in finite time. Model flexibility is achieved by leaving a transformed time measure for disease progression completely unspecified, and regression structures are incorporated into the model by taking the acceleration factor and the threshold parameter as functions of the covariates. When applied to experiments with a cure fraction, this model is compatible with classical two‐mixture or promotion‐time cure rate models. We develop an asymptotically efficient likelihood‐based estimation and inference procedure and derive the large‐sample properties of the estimators. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method performs well in finite samples. A case study of stage‐III soft tissue sarcoma data is used as an illustration. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 42: 635–649; 2014 © 2014 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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207