Empirical study of the dependence of the results of multivariable flexible survival analyses on model selection strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexible survival models, which avoid assumptions about hazards proportionality (PH) or linearity of continuous covariates effects, bring the issues of model selection to a new level of complexity. Each 'candidate covariate' requires inter-dependent decisions regarding (i) its inclusion in the model, and representation of its effects on the log hazard as (ii) either constant over time or time-dependent (TD) and, for continuous covariates, (iii) either loglinear or non-loglinear (NL). Moreover, 'optimal' decisions for one covariate depend on the decisions regarding others. Thus, some efficient model-building strategy is necessary.We carried out an empirical study of the impact of the model selection strategy on the estimates obtained in flexible multivariable survival analyses of prognostic factors for mortality in 273 gastric cancer patients. We used 10 different strategies to select alternative multivariable parametric as well as spline-based models, allowing flexible modeling of non-parametric (TD and/or NL) effects. We employed 5-fold cross-validation to compare the predictive ability of alternative models.All flexible models indicated significant non-linearity and changes over time in the effect of age at diagnosis. Conventional 'parametric' models suggested the lack of period effect, whereas more flexible strategies indicated a significant NL effect. Cross-validation confirmed that flexible models predicted better mortality. The resulting differences in the 'final model' selected by various strategies had also impact on the risk prediction for individual subjects.Overall, our analyses underline (a) the importance of accounting for significant non-parametric effects of covariates and (b) the need for developing accurate model selection strategies for flexible survival analyses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".