MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117179243 · doi:10.1080/02664760903521476

Bayesian parametric accelerated failure time spatial model and its application to prostate cancer

2010· article· en· W2117179243 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jiajia Zhang, Andrew Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMcGill University
KeywordsProstate cancerBayesian probabilityParametric statisticsAccelerated failure time modelSemiparametric modelComputer scienceParametric modelStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsCancerProportional hazards modelMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in American men and the second leading cause of death from malignancies. There are large geographical variation and racial disparities existing in the survival rate of prostate cancer. Much work on the spatial survival model is based on the proportional hazards model, but few focused on the accelerated failure time model. In this paper, we investigate the prostate cancer data of Louisiana from the SEER program and the violation of the proportional hazards assumption suggests the spatial survival model based on the accelerated failure time model is more appropriate for this data set. To account for the possible extra-variation, we consider spatially-referenced independent or dependent spatial structures. The deviance information criterion (DIC) is used to select a best fitting model within the Bayesian frame work. The results from our study indicate that age, race, stage and geographical distribution are significant in evaluating prostate cancer survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207