MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154106034 · doi:10.1111/rssa.12041

Geostatistical Survival Models for Environmental Risk Assessment with Large Retrospective Cohorts

2013· article· en· W2154106034 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Huan Jiang, Håvard Rue, Sílvia Emiko Shimakura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityCancer Care Ontario
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLaplace's methodRetrospective cohort studyStatisticsMarkov random fieldComputer scienceBayesian probabilityPopulationInferenceBayesian inferenceCancer registryEconometricsData miningMedicineMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Motivated by the problem of cancer risk assessment near a nuclear power generating station, the paper describes a methodology for fitting a spatially correlated survival model to large retrospective cohort data sets. Retrospective cohorts, which can be assembled inexpensively from population-based health databases, can partially account for lags between exposures and outcome of chronic diseases such as cancer. These data sets overcome one of the principal limitations of cross-sectional spatial analyses, though performing statistical inference requires accommodating censored and truncated event times as well as spatial dependence. The use of spatial survival models for large retrospective cohorts is described, and Bayesian inference using Markov random-field approximations and integrated nested Laplace approximations is presented. The method is applied to data from individuals living near Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Canada, showing that the effect of ambient radiation on cancer is not statistically significant.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207