Developing points‐based risk‐scoring systems in the presence of competing risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the occurrence of an adverse event over time is an important issue in clinical medicine. Clinical prediction models and associated points-based risk-scoring systems are popular statistical methods for summarizing the relationship between a multivariable set of patient risk factors and the risk of the occurrence of an adverse event. Points-based risk-scoring systems are popular amongst physicians as they permit a rapid assessment of patient risk without the use of computers or other electronic devices. The use of such points-based risk-scoring systems facilitates evidence-based clinical decision making. There is a growing interest in cause-specific mortality and in non-fatal outcomes. However, when considering these types of outcomes, one must account for competing risks whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the event of interest. We describe how points-based risk-scoring systems can be developed in the presence of competing events. We illustrate the application of these methods by developing risk-scoring systems for predicting cardiovascular mortality in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Code in the R statistical programming language is provided for the implementation of the described methods. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by 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 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 | 0.055 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".