MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156745572 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxp041

Bayesian random-effects threshold regression with application to survival data with nonproportional hazards

2009· article· en· W2156745572 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. Pennell, G. À. Whitmore, Mei‐Ling Ting Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBiostatistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsBayesian probabilityRegressionStatisticsProportional hazards modelRegression analysisEconometricsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In epidemiological and clinical studies, time-to-event data often violate the assumptions of Cox regression due to the presence of time-dependent covariate effects and unmeasured risk factors. An alternative approach, which does not require proportional hazards, is to use a first hitting time model which treats a subject's health status as a latent stochastic process that fails when it reaches a threshold value. Although more flexible than Cox regression, existing methods do not account for unmeasured covariates in both the initial state and the rate of the process. To address this issue, we propose a Bayesian methodology that models an individual's health status as a Wiener process with subject-specific initial state and drift. Posterior inference proceeds via a Markov chain Monte Carlo methodology with data augmentation steps to sample the final health status of censored observations. We apply our method to data from melanoma patients with nonproportional hazards and find interesting differences from a similar model without random effects. In a simulation study, we show that failure to account for unmeasured covariates can lead to inaccurate estimates of survival probabilities.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiostatisticsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207