Multistate Analysis of Interval-Censored Longitudinal Data: Application to a Cohort Study on Performance Status Among Patients Diagnosed With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In observational studies on cancer patients, progression of performance status over time can be described by using a multistate model in which state-to-state transitions represent changes in a patient's health condition. Although a patient experiences transitions in continuous time, assessments on the patient are often made at irregularly spaced time points. In this paper, the authors formulate a Markov 4-state model for examining longitudinal data on performance status collected under intermittent observation. The cohort consisted of 11,342 patients diagnosed with cancer in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2009. The authors extend the model to estimate the predicted probability of reaching the absorbing state, death, over various time intervals. The authors also illustrate what happens to the estimated transition intensities if the true observational scheme is overlooked. Methods for multistate analysis should be used by epidemiologists, since they prove particularly useful for examining the complexities of disease processes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".