MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158803120 · doi:10.1198/000313008x298439

Survival Analysis

2008· article· en· W2158803120 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyEconometricsMistakeProportional hazards modelEstimatorSurvival analysisPsychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I will discuss life tables and Kaplan–Meier estimators, which are similar to life tables. Then I turn to proportional-hazards models, aka “Cox models.” Along the way, I will look at the efficacy of screening for lung cancer, the impact of negative religious feelings on survival, and the efficacy of hormone replacement therapy.What conclusions should be drawn about statistical practice? Proportional-hazards models are frequently used to analyze data from randomized controlled trials. This is a mistake. Randomization does not justify the models, which are rarely informative. Simpler analytic methods should be used first.With observational studies, the models would help us disentangle causal relations if the assumptions behind the models could be justified. Justifying those assumptions, however, is fraught with difficulty.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.008

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American StatisticianSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207