Weighting methods for ties between event times and covariate change times
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
Recent work has shown that the presence of ties between an outcome event and the time that a binary covariate changes or jumps can lead to biased estimates of regression coefficients in the Cox proportional hazards model. One proposed solution is the Equally Weighted method. The coefficient estimate of the Equally Weighted method is defined to be the average of the coefficient estimates of the Jump Before Event method and the Jump After Event method, where these two methods assume that the jump always occurs before or after the event time, respectively. In previous work, the bootstrap method was used to estimate the standard error of the Equally Weighted coefficient estimate. However, the bootstrap approach was computationally intensive and resulted in overestimation. In this article, two new methods for the estimation of the Equally Weighted standard error are proposed. Three alternative methods for estimating both the regression coefficient and the corresponding standard error are also proposed. All the proposed methods are easy to implement. The five methods are investigated using a simulation study and are illustrated using two real datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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