MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744173239 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1253

Bayesian one‐step IPD network meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event data using Royston‐Parmar models

2017· article· en· W2744173239 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversidad de Buenos AiresChang Gung Medical FoundationUniversity of AlbertaSanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical SciencesUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenChiang Mai UniversityRijksuniversiteit GroningenYale University
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian probabilityConsistency (knowledge bases)Proportional hazards modelMeta-analysisEvent (particle physics)Bayesian networkData miningMachine learningStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMedicineMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network meta-analysis (NMA) combines direct and indirect evidence from trials to calculate and rank treatment estimates. While modelling approaches for continuous and binary outcomes are relatively well developed, less work has been done with time-to-event outcomes. Such outcomes are usually analysed using Cox proportional hazard (PH) models. However, in oncology with longer follow-up time, and time-dependent effects of targeted treatments, this may no longer be appropriate. Network meta-analysis conducted in the Bayesian setting has been increasing in popularity. However, fitting the Cox model is computationally intensive, making it unsuitable for many datasets. Royston-Parmar models are a flexible alternative that can accommodate time-dependent effects. Motivated by individual participant data (IPD) from 37 cervical cancer trials (5922 women) comparing surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, this paper develops an IPD Royston-Parmar Bayesian NMA model for overall survival. We give WinBUGS code for the model. We show how including a treatment-ln(time) interaction can be used to conduct a global test for PH, illustrate how to test for consistency of direct and indirect evidence, and assess within-design heterogeneity. Our approach provides a computationally practical, flexible Bayesian approach to NMA of IPD survival data, which readily extends to include additional complexities, such as non-PH, increasingly found in oncology trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.678
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6780.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0180.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.979
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it