MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153374297 · doi:10.1093/biomet/ass017

Nonparametric incidence estimation from prevalent cohort survival data

2012· article· en· W2153374297 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marco Carone, Masoud Asgharian, M.-C. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrika · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of HealthFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsIncidence (geometry)EstimatorStatisticsCohortCumulative incidenceEpidemiologyDemographyEstimationCohort studyPopulationMathematicsMedicineEconometricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incidence is an important epidemiological concept most suitably studied using an incident cohort study. However, data are often collected from the more feasible prevalent cohort study, whereby diseased individuals are recruited through a cross-sectional survey and followed in time. In the absence of temporal trends in survival, we derive an efficient nonparametric estimator of the cumulative incidence based on such data and study its asymptotic properties. Arbitrary calendar time variations in disease incidence are allowed. Age-specific incidence and adjustments for both stratified sampling and temporal variations in survival are also discussed. Simulation results are presented and data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging are analysed to infer the incidence of dementia in the Canadian elderly population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrikaSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207