Competing risks modeling of cumulative effects of time-varying drug exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate assessment of drug safety or effectiveness in pharmaco-epidemiology requires defining an etiologically correct time-varying exposure model, which specifies how previous drug use affects the hazard of the event of interest. An additional challenge is to account for the multitude of mutually exclusive events that may be associated with the use of a given drug. To simultaneously address both challenges, we develop, and validate in simulations, a new approach that combines flexible modeling of the cumulative effects of time-varying exposures with competing risks methodology to separate the effects of the same drug exposure on different outcomes. To account for the dosage, duration and timing of past exposures, we rely on a spline-based weighted cumulative exposure modeling. We also propose likelihood ratio tests to test if the cumulative effects of past exposure on the hazards of the competing events are the same or different. Simulation results indicate that the estimated event-specific weight functions are reasonably accurate, and that the proposed tests have acceptable type I error rate and power. In real-life application, the proposed method indicated that recent use of antihypertensive drugs may reduce the risk of stroke but has no effect on the hazard of coronary heart disease events.
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".