MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295493525 · doi:10.1111/biom.12503

Marginal Regression Analysis of Recurrent Events with Coarsened Censoring Times

2016· article· en· W2295493525 on OpenAlexafffund
X. Joan Hu, Rhonda J. Rosychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)StatisticsRegression analysisRegressionEconometricsMarginal modelComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by an ongoing pediatric mental health care (PMHC) study, this article presents weakly structured methods for analyzing doubly censored recurrent event data where only coarsened information on censoring is available. The study extracted administrative records of emergency department visits from provincial health administrative databases. The available information of each individual subject is limited to a subject-specific time window determined up to concealed data. To evaluate time-dependent effect of exposures, we adapt the local linear estimation with right censored survival times under the Cox regression model with time-varying coefficients (cf. Cai and Sun, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 2003, 30, 93-111). We establish the pointwise consistency and asymptotic normality of the regression parameter estimator, and examine its performance by simulation. The PMHC study illustrates the proposed approach throughout the article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207