A Tutorial on Multilevel Survival Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data that have a multilevel structure occur frequently across a range of disciplines, including epidemiology, health services research, public health, education and sociology. We describe three families of regression models for the analysis of multilevel survival data. First, Cox proportional hazards models with mixed effects incorporate cluster-specific random effects that modify the baseline hazard function. Second, piecewise exponential survival models partition the duration of follow-up into mutually exclusive intervals and fit a model that assumes that the hazard function is constant within each interval. This is equivalent to a Poisson regression model that incorporates the duration of exposure within each interval. By incorporating cluster-specific random effects, generalised linear mixed models can be used to analyse these data. Third, after partitioning the duration of follow-up into mutually exclusive intervals, one can use discrete time survival models that use a complementary log-log generalised linear model to model the occurrence of the outcome of interest within each interval. Random effects can be incorporated to account for within-cluster homogeneity in outcomes. We illustrate the application of these methods using data consisting of patients hospitalised with a heart attack. We illustrate the application of these methods using three statistical programming languages (R, SAS and Stata).
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.013 |
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".