Impact of the model‐building strategy on inference about nonlinear and time‐dependent covariate effects in survival analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cox's proportional hazards (PH) model assumes constant-over-time covariate effects. Furthermore, most applications assume linear effects of continuous covariates on the logarithm of the hazard. Yet, many prognostic factors have time-dependent (TD) and/or nonlinear (NL) effects, that is, violate these conventional assumptions. Detection of such complex effects could affect prognosis and clinical decisions. However, assessing the effects of each of the multiple, often correlated, covariates in flexible multivariable analyses is challenging. In simulations, we investigated the impact of the approach used to build the flexible multivariable model on inference about the TD and NL covariate effects. Results demonstrate that the conclusions regarding the statistical significance of the TD/NL effects depend heavily on the strategy used to decide which effects of the other covariates should be adjusted for. Both a failure to adjust for true TD and NL effects of relevant covariates and inclusion of spurious effects of covariates that conform to the PH and linearity assumptions increase the risk of incorrect conclusions regarding other covariates. In this context, iterative backward elimination of nonsignificant NL and TD effects from the multivariable model, which initially includes all these effects, may help discriminate between true and spurious effects. The practical importance of these issues was illustrated in an example that reassessed the predictive ability of selected biomarkers for survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. In conclusion, a careful model-building strategy and flexible modeling of multivariable survival data can yield new insights about predictors' roles and improve the validity of 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".