MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884668939 · doi:10.1177/0962280218786980

Joint modelling for organ transplantation outcomes for patients with diabetes and the end-stage renal disease

2018· article· en· W2884668939 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianghu Dong, Shijia Wang, Liangliang Wang, Jagbir Gill, Jiguo Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionProportional hazards modelKidney transplantationEnd stage renal diseaseTransplantationInternal medicineDiseaseIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is motivated by jointly modelling longitudinal and time-to-event clinical data of patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease. All patients are on the waiting list for the pancreas transplant after kidney transplant, and some of them have a pancreas transplant before kidney transplant failure or death. Scant literature has studied the dynamical joint relationship of the estimated glomerular filtration rates trajectory, the effect of pancreas transplant, and time-to-event outcomes, although it remains an important clinical question. In an attempt to describe the association in the multiple outcomes, we propose a new joint model with a longitudinal submodel and an accelerated failure time submodel, which are linked by some latent variables. The accelerated failure time submodel is used to determine the relationship of the time-to-event outcome with all predictors. In addition, the piecewise linear function in the survival submodel is used to calculate the dynamic hazard ratio curve of a time-dependent side event, because the effect of the side event on the time-to-event outcome is non-proportional. The model parameters are estimated with a Monte Carlo EM algorithm. The finite sample performance of the proposed method is investigated in simulation studies. Our method is demonstrated by fitting the joint model for the clinical data of 13,635 patients with diabetes and the end-stage renal disease.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207