MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301711657 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2016.02.004

Survival analysis following dynamic randomization

2016· article· en· W2301711657 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomizationMartingale (probability theory)Computer scienceMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmEconometricsRandomized controlled trialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a method to analyze survival data from a clinical trial that utilizes a dynamic randomization for subject enrollment. The method directly accounts for dynamic subject randomization process using a marked point process (MPP). Its corresponding martingale process is used to formulate an equation for estimating the treatment effect size and for hypothesis testing. We perform simulation analyses to evaluate the outcomes of the proposed method as well as the conventional log rank method and re-randomized testing procedure.

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.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.717
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.106 · 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