MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2378268168 · doi:10.1002/sim.6979

A flexible parametric approach for estimating continuous‐time inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights

2016· article· en· W2378268168 on OpenAlexaff
Olli Saarela, Zhihui Amy Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverse probabilityCensoring (clinical trials)Marginal structural modelInverse probability weightingParametric statisticsStatisticsWeightingEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceMarginal distributionProportional hazards modelConfoundingParametric modelEconometricsMathematicsPosterior probabilityMedicineEstimatorRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal structural Cox models are used for quantifying marginal treatment effects on outcome event hazard function. Such models are estimated using inverse probability of treatment and censoring (IPTC) weighting, which properly accounts for the impact of time-dependent confounders, avoiding conditioning on factors on the causal pathway. To estimate the IPTC weights, the treatment assignment mechanism is conventionally modeled in discrete time. While this is natural in situations where treatment information is recorded at scheduled follow-up visits, in other contexts, the events specifying the treatment history can be modeled in continuous time using the tools of event history analysis. This is particularly the case for treatment procedures, such as surgeries. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for flexible parametric estimation of continuous-time IPTC weights and illustrate it in assessing the relationship between metastasectomy and mortality in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207