Bayesian Inference in a Joint Model for Longitudinal and Time to Event Data with Gompertz Baseline Hazards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal and time to event data are frequently encountered in many medical studies. Clinicians are more interested in how longitudinal outcomes influences the time to an event of i nterest. To study the association between longitudinal and time to event data, joint modeling approaches were found to be the most appropriate techniques for such data. The approaches involves the choice of the distribution of the survival times which in most cases authors prefer either exponential or Weibull distribution. However, these distributions have some shortcomings. In this paper, we propose an alternative joint model approach under Bayesian prospective. We assumed that survival times follow a Gompertz distribution. One of the advantages of Gompertz distribution is that its cumulative distribution function has a closed form solution and it accommodates time varying covariates. A Bayesian approach through Gibbs sampling procedure was developed for parameter estimation and inferences. We evaluate the finite samples performance of the joint model through an extensive simulation study and apply the model to a real dataset to determine the association between markers(tumor sizes) and time to death among cancer patients without recurrence. Our analysis suggested that the proposed joint modeling approach perform well in terms of parameter estimations when correlation between random intercepts and slopes is considered.
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 | 0.028 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".