Relative survival multistate Markov model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prognostic studies often have to deal with two important challenges: (i) separating effects of predictions on different 'competing' events and (ii) uncertainty about cause of death. Multistate Markov models permit multivariable analyses of competing risks of, for example, mortality versus disease recurrence. On the other hand, relative survival methods help estimate disease-specific mortality risks even in the absence of data on causes of death. In this paper, we propose a new Markov relative survival (MRS) model that attempts to combine these two methodologies. Our MRS model extends the existing multistate Markov piecewise constant intensities model to relative survival modeling. The intensity of transitions leading to death in the MRS model is modeled as the sum of an estimable excess hazard of mortality from the disease of interest and an 'offset' defined as the expected hazard of all-cause 'natural' mortality obtained from relevant life-tables. We evaluate the new MRS model through simulations, with a design based on registry-based prognostic studies of colon cancer. Simulation results show almost unbiased estimates of prognostic factor effects for the MRS model. We also applied the new MRS model to reassess the role of prognostic factors for mortality in a study of colorectal cancer. The MRS model considerably reduces the bias observed with the conventional Markov model that does not permit accounting for unknown causes of death, especially if the 'true' effects of a prognostic factor on the two types of mortality differ substantially.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".