Calculating the power or sample size for the logistic and proportional hazards models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An algorithm is presented for calculating the power for the logistic and proportional hazards models in which some of the covariates are discrete and the remainders are multivariate normal. The mean and covariance matrix of the multivariate normal covariates may depend on the discrete covariates. The algorithm, which finds the power of the Wald test, uses the result that the information matrix can be calculated using univariate numerical integration even when there are several continuous covariates. The algorithm is checked using simulation and in certain situations gives more accurate results than current methods which are based on simple formulae. The algorithm is used to explore properties of these models, in particular, the power gain from a prognostic covariate in the analysis of a clinical trial or observational study. The methods can be extended to determine power for other generalized linear models. Keywords: Sample sizePowerLogistic modelProportional hazards modelGeneralized linear modelsMultivariate normal integralsWald test Acknowledgements This work was funded by NIH under grants CA 74302, SBIR-MH 52969 and SBIR-MH 60033. The algorithm was developed for inclusion in the commercial software application 'Power and Precision' developed by Biostatistical Programming Associates Inc. David Schoenfeld is a paid consultant to Biostatistical Programming Associates Inc. and Michael Borenstein is the owner and president of the company.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.113 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it