MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520523926 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9999

Survival Prediction by an Integrated Learning Criterion on Intermittently Varying Healthcare Data

2016· article· en· W2520523926 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianfei Zhang, Lifei Chen, Alain Vanasse, Josiane Courteau, Shengrui Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryHealth careComputer scienceClass (philosophy)Healthcare systemMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival prediction is crucial to healthcare research, but is confined primarily to specific types of data involving only the present measurements. This paper considers the more general class of healthcare data found in practice, which includes a wealth of intermittently varying historical measurements in addition to the present measurements. Making survival predictions on such data bristles with challenges to the existing prediction models. For this reason, we propose a new semi-proportional hazards model using locally time-varying coefficients, and a novel complete-data model learning criterion for coefficient optimization. Experiments on the healthcare data demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our model and its promise in practical applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207