MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339513403 · doi:10.1177/0962280215613378

Bayesian analysis of multi-type recurrent events and dependent termination with nonparametric covariate functions

2015· article· en· W2339513403 on OpenAlexaff
Li‐An Lin, Sheng Luo, Bingshu E. Chen, Barry R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of Texas at Austin
KeywordsCovariateNonparametric statisticsEvent (particle physics)StatisticsMultivariate statisticsBayesian probabilityEconometricsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-type recurrent event data occur frequently in longitudinal studies. Dependent termination may occur when the terminal time is correlated to recurrent event times. In this article, we simultaneously model the multi-type recurrent events and a dependent terminal event, both with nonparametric covariate functions modeled by B-splines. We develop a Bayesian multivariate frailty model to account for the correlation among the dependent termination and various types of recurrent events. Extensive simulation results suggest that misspecifying nonparametric covariate functions may introduce bias in parameter estimation. This method development has been motivated by and applied to the lipid-lowering trial component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207