MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804840181 · doi:10.1002/sim.7805

Nonparametric analysis of dependently interval‐censored failure time data

2018· article· en· W2804840181 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yayuan Zhu, Jerald F. Lawless, Cecilia A. Cotton

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsEstimatorStatisticsConfidence intervalParametric statisticsWeightingInverse probability weightingEconometricsInterval (graph theory)Accelerated failure time modelObservational studyMathematicsComputer scienceCovariateMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure time studies based on observational cohorts often have to deal with irregular intermittent observation of individuals, which produces interval-censored failure times. When the observation times depend on factors related to a person's failure time, the failure times may be dependently interval censored. Inverse-intensity-of-visit weighting methods have been developed for irregularly observed longitudinal or repeated measures data and recently extended to parametric failure time analysis. This article develops nonparametric estimation of failure time distributions using weighted generalized estimating equations and monotone smoothing techniques. Simulations are conducted for examination of the finite sample performance of proposed estimators. This research is motivated in part by the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Cohort Study, and the proposed methodology is applied to this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207