Cure rate quantile regression accommodating both finite and infinite survival times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In survival analysis a proportion of patients may be cured by the treatment, and thus they become risk‐free of the event of interest and their survival times change to infinity. The existence of such a survival fraction often makes the underlying population more heterogeneous and heavily right‐skewed. Compared with the traditional mean‐ or hazard‐based regression methods, quantile regression is more suitable for such survival data as it is more robust against outliers or infinite survival times. Moreover, it offers a comprehensive assessment of the covariate effects on the survival times at different quantile levels. We propose a new cure rate quantile regression model for the entire population including both finite and infinite survival times. By invoking non‐parametric functional estimation an iterative algorithm is developed to estimate the cure rate parameters. The scheme of redistribution‐of‐mass to the right for censored data is adopted to estimate the quantile regression parameters. The consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators are established. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite‐sample performance of the proposed method, which is further illustrated with a phase III melanoma clinical trial study.The Canadian Journal of Statistics45: 29–43; 2017 © 2016 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".