Nested case‐control study designs for left‐truncated survival data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of risk factors for disease incidence has been the subject of much epidemiologic research. With this goal a common study design entails the follow-up of an initially disease-free cohort, keeping track of the dates of disease incidence (onset) and ascertaining covariate (putative risk factor) information on the full cohort. However, the collection of certain covariate information on all study subjects may be prohibitively expensive and, therefore, the nested case-control study has commonly been used. The high cost of full covariate information on all subjects also arises when determining risk factors for "failure," death say, "following" disease onset, in particular, in a prevalent cohort study with follow-up; in such a study a cohort of subjects with existing disease is followed. We here adapt nested case-control designs to the setting of a prevalent cohort study with follow-up, a topic previously not addressed in the literature. We provide the partial likelihood under risk set sampling and state the asymptotic properties of the estimated covariate effects and baseline cumulative hazard. We address the following design questions in the context of prevalent cohort studies with follow-up: How many subjects should be included in the sampled risk sets for efficient estimation? In what way is the proportion of censored subjects associated with the benefit of a nested case-control design? What proportion of overall variance is attributable to risk set sampling? This work is motivated by the anticipated analysis of data on survival with Parkinson's Disease, being collected as part of the ongoing Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.
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 | 0.086 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".