MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2226573656 · doi:10.1002/sim.6845

A comparison of change point models with application to longitudinal lung function measurements in children with cystic fibrosis

2016· article· en· W2226573656 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Moss, Farouk S. Nathoo, Brandie D. Wagner, Scott D. Sagel

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsCystic fibrosisRandom effects modelLung functionDemographyPopulationLung diseaseTime pointMedicinePulmonary function testingLungStatisticsMathematicsInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a hereditary lung disease characterized by loss of lung function over time. Lung function in CF is believed to decline at a higher rate during the adolescence period. It has been also hypothesized that there is a subgroup of individuals for whom lung disease remains relatively stable with only a slight decline over their lifetime. Using data from the University of Colorado CF Children's Registry, we investigate four change point models to model the decline of lung function in children and adolescents: (i) a two-component mixture random change point model, (ii) a two-component mixture-fixed change point model, (iii) a random change point model, and (iv) a fixed change point model. The models are investigated through posterior predictive simulation at the individual and population levels, and a simulation study examining the effects of model misspecification. The data support the mixed random change point model as the preferred model, with roughly 30% of adolescents experiencing a steady decline of 0.5 %FEV1 per year and 70% experiencing an increase in decline of 4.4 %FEV1 per year beginning on average at 14.6 years of age. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207