Survival Functions in the Presence of Several Events and Competing Risks: Estimation and Interpretation Beyond Kaplan-Meier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of a therapeutic strategy is complex when the course of a disease is characterized by the occurrence of different kinds of events. Competing risks arise when the occurrence of specific events prevents the observation of other events. A particular case is semi-competing risks when only fatal events can prevent the observation of the non fatal ones. Kaplan-Meier is the most popular method to estimate overall or event free survival. On the other hand when a subset of events is considered and net survival is of concern, different estimators have been proposed. Kaplan-Meier method can be used only under the independence assumptions otherwise estimators based on multivariate distribution of times are needed. If causes of death are unknown, relative survival can approximate net survival only under specific assumptions on the mortality pattern. Kaplan-Meier method cannot be used to estimate crude cumulative incidence of specific events. The aim of this work is to present the survival functions used in competing risks framework, their non parametric estimators and semi parametric estimators for net survival based on Archimedean Copulas. This would be a help for the reader who is not experienced in competing risks analysis. A simulation study is performed to evaluate performances of net survival estimators. To illustrate survival functions in presence of different causes of death and of different kind of events a numerical example is given, a literature dataset on prostate cancer and a case series of breast cancer patients have been analysed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".