MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119396122 · doi:10.1002/sim.1484

A relative survival regression model using B‐spline functions to model non‐proportional hazards

2003· article· en· W2119396122 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLigue Contre le Cancer
KeywordsProportional hazards modelCovariateRelative survivalStatisticsRegression analysisSurvival analysisPopulationInferenceRegressionHazard ratioRelative riskEconometricsMathematicsMedicineComputer scienceCancer registryConfidence intervalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relative survival, a method for assessing prognostic factors for disease-specific mortality in unselected populations, is frequently used in population-based studies. However, most relative survival models assume that the effects of covariates on disease-specific mortality conform with the proportional hazards hypothesis, which may not hold in some long-term studies. To accommodate variation over time of a predictor's effect on disease-specific mortality, we developed a new relative survival regression model using B-splines to model the hazard ratio as a flexible function of time, without having to specify a particular functional form. Our method also allows for testing the hypotheses of hazards proportionality and no association on disease-specific hazard. Accuracy of estimation and inference were evaluated in simulations. The method is illustrated by an analysis of a population-based study of colon cancer.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.281 · 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