Recursive Partitioning Method on Competing Risk Outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some cancer clinical studies, researchers have interests to explore the risk factors associated with competing risk outcomes such as recurrence-free survival. We develop a novel recursive partitioning framework on competing risk data for both prognostic and predictive model constructions. We define specific splitting rules, pruning algorithm, and final tree selection algorithm for the competing risk tree models. This methodology is quite flexible that it can corporate both semiparametric method using Cox proportional hazards model and parametric competing risk model. Both prognostic and predictive tree models are developed to adjust for potential confounding factors. Extensive simulations show that our methods have well-controlled type I error and robust power performance. Finally, we apply both Cox proportional hazards model and flexible parametric model for prognostic tree development on a retrospective clinical study on oropharyngeal cancer patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it