Propensity score estimation in the presence of length‐biased sampling: a non‐parametric adjustment approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pervasive use of prevalent cohort studies on disease duration increasingly calls for an appropriate methodology to account for the biases that invariably accompany samples formed by such data. It is well-known, for example, that subjects with shorter lifetime are less likely to be present in such studies. Moreover, certain covariate values could be preferentially selected into the sample, being linked to the long-term survivors. The existing methodology for estimating the propensity score using data collected on prevalent cases requires the correct conditional survival/hazard function given the treatment and covariates. This requirement can be alleviated if the disease under study has stationary incidence, the so-called stationarity assumption. We propose a nonparametric adjustment technique based on a weighted estimating equation for estimating the propensity score which does not require modeling the conditional survival/hazard function when the stationarity assumption holds. The estimator's large-sample properties are established and its small-sample behavior is studied via simulation. The estimated propensity score is utilized to estimate the survival curves.
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 | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".