Parametric Model Evaluation in Examining the Survival of Gastric Cancer Patients Andits Influencing Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cox proportional hazard model is the most common technique to analysis the variables effect on survival time, but under certain circumstances, parametric models may offer advantages over Cox’s model. In this study we use cox regression and alternative parametric models such as Weibull, exponential, log-normal, logistics and gamma model to evaluate factors affecting survival of patients with gastric cancer. Comparisons were made to find the best model. METHOD: In this study, data from 643 patients with gastric cancer who were referred to Imam Khomeini hospital with personal details during 2007 to 2013 have been reviewed in order to determine the survival rate of gastric cancer. It was observed that 74 cases were eliminated due to incomplete information and 569 persons were examined. Akaike Information model was used for comparison between models. RESULT: Of a total of 569 patients, 329 (57.8%) died during the period. The figure of Cox-Snell residuals indicates that only the exponential model does not have better fitness. Weibull, log-normal, log-logistic and gamma models show the better fitness because points are on straight line. At the time of diagnosis, stage with (p<0.0008) and metastasis with (p<0.0219) were subjected to higher risk of death. CONCLUSION: Based on Akaike's criterion, the Weibull model with Akaike value of 257.165 is the most favorable for survival data.
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 | 0.023 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".