MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2224027304

Statistical Methods on Survival Data with Measurement Error

2014· dissertation· en· W2224027304 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ying Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsCovariateEstimatorObservational errorErrors-in-variables modelsStatisticsProportional hazards modelType I and type II errorsExpression (computer science)Computer scienceWord error rateEconometricsSurvival analysisMathematicsArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In survival data analysis, covariates are often subject to measurement error. A naive analysis with measurement error ignored commonly leads to biased estimation of parameters of survival models. Measurement error also causes efficiency loss for detecting possible association between risk factors and time to event. Furthermore, it induces difficulty on model building and model checking, because the presence of measurement error frequently masks true underlying patterns of data.
\n
\nAlthough there has been a large body of literature to handle error-prone survival data since the paper by Prentice (1982), many important issues still remain unexplored in this area. This thesis focuses on several important issues of survival analysis with covariate measurement error.
\n
\nOne problem that has received little attention is on misspecification of measurement error models. In this thesis, we investigate this important problem with the attention particularly paid to error-contaminated survival data under the Cox model. In particular, we conduct bias analysis which offers a way to unify many existing methods of survival data with measurement error, and study the impact of misspecifying the error models in survival data analysis. A simple expression is obtained to quantify the bias of "working" estimators derived under misspecified error models. Consistent estimators under general error models are derived based on this simple expression. Furthermore, we study hypothesis testing with both model misspecification and measurement error present.
\n
\nA second problem of our interest is about the validity of survival model assumptions when measurement error is involved. In the literature, a large number of methods have been developed to correct for measurement error effects, and these methods basically assume the survival model to be the Cox model. When the Cox model or the error model assumptions fail to hold, existing methods would break down. In this thesis, we address the issue of checking the Cox model assumptions with measurement error. We propose valid goodness of fit tests for survival data with covariate measurement error. This research offers us an important addition to the literature of survival data with measurement error.
\n
\nOur third topic concerns survival data analysis under additive hazards models with covariate measurement error. The additive hazards model is a useful and important alternative to the Cox model. However, this model is relatively less studied for situations where covariates are measured with error. In this thesis, we make important contributions to this topic. Specifically, we explore asymptotic bias induced from ignoring measurement error. A number of inference methods are developed to correct for error effects. The validity of the proposed methods is justified both theoretically and empirically. We investigate issues of model checking and model misspecification as well.
\n
\nIn many studies, collection of data often includes a large number of variables in which many of them are unimportant in explaining survival of an individual. An important task is thus to identify relevant risk factors which are linked to the hazards of subjects. Although there is work on variable selection for survival data analysis, the available methods typically require all variables be precisely measured. This requirement is, however, often infeasible. More challengingly, in some studies, the dimension of the risk factors can be quite large or even much larger than the size of subjects. Our fourth topic concerns about estimation and variable selection for survival data with high dimensional mismeasured covariates. We propose corrected penalized methods. Our methods can adjust for measurement error effects, and perform estimation and variable selection simultaneously. Our research on this topic closes multiple gaps among the areas of survival analysis, measurement error and variable selection.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207