The number of primary events per variable affects estimation of the subdistribution hazard competing risks model
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
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of the number of events per variable (EPV) on the accuracy of estimated regression coefficients, standard errors, empirical coverage rates of estimated confidence intervals, and empirical estimates of statistical power when using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard regression model to assess the effect of covariates on the incidence of events that occur over time in the presence of competing risks. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Monte Carlo simulations were used. We considered two different definitions of the number of EPV. One included events of any type that occurred (both primary events and competing events), whereas the other included only the number of primary events that occurred. RESULTS: The definition of EPV that included only the number of primary events was preferable to the alternative definition, as the number of competing events had minimal impact on estimation. In general, 40-50 EPV were necessary to ensure accurate estimation of regression coefficients and associated quantities. However, if all of the covariates are continuous or are binary with moderate prevalence, then 10 EPV are sufficient to ensure accurate estimation. CONCLUSION: Analysts must base the number of EPV on the number of primary events that occurred.
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 | 0.035 | 0.380 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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