Competing risks modeling of cumulative effects of time-varying drug exposures
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
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.
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 | 0.088 | 0.920 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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