A validation sampling approach for consistent estimation of adverse drug reaction risk with misclassified right‐censored survival data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient electronic health records, viewed as continuous-time right-censored survival data, can be used to estimate adverse drug reaction risk. Temporal outcome misclassification may occur as a result of errors in follow-up. These errors can be due to a failure to observe the incidence time of the adverse event of interest (due to misdiagnosis or nonreporting, etc) or an actual misdiagnosis of a competing adverse event. As the misclassifying event is often unobservable in the original data, we apply an internal validation sampling approach to produce consistent estimation in the presence of such errors. We introduce a univariate survival model and a cause-specific hazards model in which misclassification may also manifest as a diagnosis of an alternate adverse health outcome other than that of interest. We develop a method of maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters and establish consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimators using standard results. We also conduct simulation studies to numerically investigate the finite sample properties of these estimators and the impact of ignoring the misclassification error.
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 | 0.050 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".