Benefits of combining prevalent and incident cohorts: An application to myotonic dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is frequently of interest to estimate the time that individuals survive with a disease, that is, to estimate the time between disease onset and occurrence of a clinical endpoint such as death. Epidemiologic survival data are commonly collected from either an incident cohort, whose members' disease onset occurs after the study baseline date, or from a cohort with prevalent disease that is followed forward in time. Incident cohort survival data are limited by study termination, while prevalent cohort data provide biased (left-truncated) survival data. In this article, we investigate the advantages of a study design featuring simultaneous follow-up of prevalent and incident cohorts to the estimation of the survivor function. Our analyses are supported by simulations and illustrated using data on survival after myotonic dystrophy diagnosis from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We demonstrate that the NPMLE using combined incident and prevalent cohort data estimates the true survivor function very well, even for moderate sample sizes, and ameliorates the disadvantages of using a purely incident or prevalent cohort.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".