MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Importance of Considering Competing Risks in Time-to-Event Analyses

2018· article· en· W2913217706 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)ComorbidityInternal medicineHazard ratioIncidence (geometry)Proportional hazards modelConfidence intervalCohortDiabetes mellitusHeart failureCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ignoring competing risks in time-to-event analyses can lead to biased risk estimates, particularly for elderly patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to demonstrate the impact of considering competing risks when estimating the cumulative incidence and risk of stroke among elderly atrial fibrillation patients. Methods and Results: Using linked administrative databases, we identified patients with atrial fibrillation aged ≥66 years discharged from hospital in ON, Canada between January 1, 2007, and March 31, 2011. We estimated the cumulative incidence of stroke hospitalization using the complement of the Kaplan–Meier function and the cumulative incidence function. This was repeated after stratifying the cohort by presence of prespecified comorbidities: chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, or dementia. The full cohort was used to regress components of the CHA 2 DS 2 VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, sex) score on the hazard of stroke hospitalization using the Fine-Gray and Cox methods. These models were subsequently used to predict the 5-year risk of stroke hospitalization. Among 136 156 patients, the median CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score was 4 and 84 728 patients (62.2%) had ≥1 prespecified comorbidity. The 5-year cumulative incidence of stroke was 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 5.3%–5.5%), whereas that of death without stroke was 48.8% (95% confidence interval, 48.5%–49.1%). The incidence of both events was overestimated by the Kaplan–Meier method; stroke incidence was overestimated by a relative factor of 39%. The degree of overestimation was larger among patients with non-CHA 2 DS 2 VASc comorbidity because of higher incidence of death without stroke. The Fine-Gray model demonstrated better calibration than the Cox model, which consistently overpredicted stroke incidence. Conclusions: The incidence of death without stroke was 9-fold higher than that of stroke, leading to biased estimates of stroke risk with traditional time-to-event methods. Statistical methods that appropriately account for competing risks should be used to mitigate this bias.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.240 · 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