Non-Parametric Tests for Right-Censored Data with Biased Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing the equality of two survival distributions can be difficult in a prevalent cohort study when non random sampling of subjects is involved. Due to the biased sampling scheme, independent censoring assumption is often violated. Although the issues about biased inference caused by length-biased sampling have been widely recognized in statistical, epidemiological and economical literature, there is no satisfactory solution for efficient two-sample testing. We propose an asymptotic most efficient nonparametric test by properly adjusting for length-biased sampling. The test statistic is derived from a full likelihood function, and can be generalized from the two-sample test to a k-sample test. The asymptotic properties of the test statistic under the null hypothesis are derived using its asymptotic independent and identically distributed representation. We conduct extensive Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed test statistics and compare them with the conditional test and the standard logrank test for different biased sampling schemes and right-censoring mechanisms. For length-biased data, empirical studies demonstrated that the proposed test is substantially more powerful than the existing methods. For general left-truncated data, the proposed test is robust, still maintains accurate control of type I error rate, and is also more powerful than the existing methods, if the truncation patterns and right-censoring patterns are the same between the groups. We illustrate the methods using two real data examples.
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 | 0.063 | 0.332 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".