Statistical power to detect violation of the proportional hazards assumption when using the Cox regression model
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
The use of the Cox proportional hazards regression model is widespread. A key assumption of the model is that of proportional hazards. Analysts frequently test the validity of this assumption using statistical significance testing. However, the statistical power of such assessments is frequently unknown. We used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the statistical power of two different methods for detecting violations of this assumption. When the covariate was binary, we found that a model-based method had greater power than a method based on cumulative sums of martingale residuals. Furthermore, the parametric nature of the distribution of event times had an impact on power when the covariate was binary. Statistical power to detect a strong violation of the proportional hazards assumption was low to moderate even when the number of observed events was high. In many data sets, power to detect a violation of this assumption is likely to be low to modest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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