MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490873225 · doi:10.1002/bimj.201500066

Correlated versus uncorrelated frailty Cox models: A comparison of different estimation procedures

2016· article· en· W2490873225 on OpenAlex
Adel Elghafghuf, Henrik Stryhn

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

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMinistère de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la RechercheMinistry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
KeywordsProportional hazards modelEstimationStatisticsUncorrelatedRegressionMedicineRegression analysisEconometricsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many studies in medicine, including clinical trials and epidemiological investigations, data are clustered into groups such as health centers or herds in veterinary medicine. Such data are usually analyzed by hierarchical regression models to account for possible variation between groups. When such variation is large, it is of potential interest to explore whether additionally the effect of a within-group predictor varies between groups. In survival analysis, this may be investigated by including two frailty terms at group level in a Cox proportional hazards model. Several estimation methods have been proposed to estimate this type of frailty Cox models. We review four of these methods, apply them to real data from veterinary medicine, and compare them using a simulation study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.480
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.019 · 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