Empirical Likelihood for Cumulative Hazard Ratio Estimation with Covariate Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In medical studies, it is often of scientific interest to evaluate the treatment effect via the ratio of cumulative hazards, especially when those hazards may be nonproportional. To deal with nonproportionality in the Cox regression model, investigators usually assume that the treatment effect has some functional form. However, to do so may create a model misspecification problem because it is generally difficult to justify the specific parametric form chosen for the treatment effect. In this article, we employ empirical likelihood (EL) to develop a nonparametric estimator of the cumulative hazard ratio with covariate adjustment under two nonproportional hazard models, one that is stratified, as well as a less restrictive framework involving group-specific treatment adjustment. The asymptotic properties of the EL ratio statistic are derived in each situation and the finite-sample properties of EL-based estimators are assessed via simulation studies. Simultaneous confidence bands for all values of the adjusted cumulative hazard ratio in a fixed interval of interest are also developed. The proposed methods are illustrated using two different datasets concerning the survival experience of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or ovarian 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.
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 | 0.035 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".