Estimating Case-Fatality Reduction from Randomized Screening Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In randomized cancer screening trials where asymptomatic individuals are assigned to undergo a regimen of screening examinations or standard care, the primary objective typically is to estimate the effect of screening assignment on cancer-specific mortality by carrying out an ’intention-to-screen’ analysis. However, most of the participants in the trial will be cancer-free; only those developing a genuine cancer that is screening-detectable can potentially benefit from screening induced early treatments. Here we consider measuring the effect of early treatments in this partially latent subpopulation in terms of reduction in case fatality. To formalize the estimands and identifying assumptions in a causal modeling framework, we first define two measures, namely proportional and absolute case-fatality reduction, using potential outcomes notation. We re-derive an earlier proposed estimator for the former, and propose a new estimator for the latter motivated by the instrumental variable approach. The methods are illustrated using data from the US National Lung Screening Trial, with specific attention to estimation in the presence of censoring and competing risks.
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 | 0.288 | 0.543 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".