Variance estimation for clustered recurrent event data with a small number of clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often in biomedical studies, the event of interest is recurrent and within-subject events cannot usually be assumed independent. In semi-parametric estimation of the proportional rates model, a working independence assumption leads to an estimating equation for the regression parameter vector, with within-subject correlation accounted for through a robust (sandwich) variance estimator; these methods have been extended to the case of clustered subjects. We consider variance estimation in the setting where subjects are clustered and the study consists of a small number of moderate-to-large-sized clusters. We demonstrate through simulation that the robust estimator is quite inaccurate in this setting. We propose a corrected version of the robust variance estimator, as well as jackknife and bootstrap estimators. Simulation studies reveal that the corrected variance is considerably more accurate than the robust estimator, and slightly more accurate than the jackknife and bootstrap variance. The proposed methods are used to compare hospitalization rates between Canada and the U.S. in a multi-centre dialysis study.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".