The Impact of Sparse Follow-up on Marginal Structural Models for Time-to-Event Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of risk factors on the amount of time taken to reach an endpoint is a common parameter of interest. Hazard ratios are often estimated using a discrete-time approximation, which works well when the by-interval event rate is low. However, if the intervals are made more frequent than the observation times, missing values will arise. We investigated common analytical approaches, including available-case (AC) analysis, last observation carried forward (LOCF), and multiple imputation (MI), in a setting where time-dependent covariates also act as mediators. We generated complete data to obtain monthly information for all individuals, and from the complete data, we selected "observed" data by assuming that follow-up visits occurred every 6 months. MI proved superior to LOCF and AC analyses when only data on confounding variables were missing; AC analysis also performed well when data for additional variables were missing completely at random. We applied the 3 approaches to data from the Canadian HIV-Hepatitis C Co-infection Cohort Study (2003-2014) to estimate the association of alcohol abuse with liver fibrosis. The AC and LOCF estimates were larger but less precise than those obtained from the analysis that employed MI.
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 | 0.034 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".