A Review of Methods to Estimate Cause-Specific Mortality in Presence of Competing Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating cause-specific mortality is often of central importance for understanding the dynamics of wildlife populations. Despite such importance, methodology for estimating and analyzing cause-specific mortality has received little attention in wildlife ecology during the past 20 years. The issue of analyzing cause-specific, mutually exclusive events in time is not unique to wildlife. In fact, this general problem has received substantial attention in human biomedical applications within the context of biostatistical survival analysis. Here, we consider cause-specific mortality from a modern biostatistical perspective. This requires carefully defining what we mean by cause-specific mortality and then providing an appropriate hazard-based representation as a competing risks problem. This leads to the general solution of cause-specific mortality as the cumulative incidence function (CIF). We describe the appropriate generalization of the fully nonparametric staggered-entry Kaplan–Meier survival estimator to cause-specific mortality via the nonparametric CIF estimator (NPCIFE), which in many situations offers an attractive alternative to the Heisey–Fuller estimator. An advantage of the NPCIFE is that it lends itself readily to risk factors analysis with standard software for Cox proportional hazards model. The competing risks–based approach also clarifies issues regarding another intuitive but erroneous “cause-specific mortality” estimator based on the Kaplan–Meier survival estimator and commonly seen in the life sciences literature.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".