The analysis of case cohort design in the presence of competing risks with application to estimate the risk of delayed cardiac toxicity among Hodgkin Lymphoma survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case-cohort design is an economical solution to studying the association between an exposure and a rare disease. When the disease of interest has a delayed occurrence, then other types of event may preclude observation of the disease of interest giving rise to a competing risk situation. In this paper, we introduce a modification of the pseudolikelihood proposed by Prentice (Biometrika 1986; 73:1-11) for the analysis of case-cohort design, to accommodate the existence of competing risks. The modification is based on the Fine and Gray (J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 1999; 94:496-509) approach to enable the modeling of the hazard of subdistribution. We show through simulations that the estimate that maximizes this modified pseudolikelihood is almost unbiased. The predictive probabilities based on the model are close to the theoretical probabilities. The variance for the estimates can be calculated using the jackknife approach. An application of this method on the analysis of late cardiac morbidity among Hodgkin Lymphoma survivors is presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it