MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963491578 · doi:10.1111/rssc.12368

Multi-Dimensional Penalized Hazard Model with Continuous Covariates: Applications for Studying Trends and Social Inequalities in Cancer Survival

2019· article· en· W2963491578 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mathieu Fauvernier, Laurent Roche, Zoé Uhry, Laure Tron, Nadine Bossard, Laurent Remontet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchHospices Civils de LyonInstitut National Du CancerMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la RechercheAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCovariateMathematicsEstimatorEconometricsProportional hazards modelStatisticsHazardRegression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Describing the dynamics of patient mortality hazard is a major concern for cancer epidemiologists. In addition to time and age, other continuous covariates have often to be included in the model. For example, survival trend analyses and socio-economic studies deal respectively with the year of diagnosis and a deprivation index. Taking advantage of a recent theoretical framework for general smooth models, the paper proposes a penalized approach to hazard and excess hazard models in time-to-event analyses. The baseline hazard and the functional forms of the covariates were specified by using penalized natural cubic regression splines with associated quadratic penalties. Interactions between continuous covariates and time-dependent effects were dealt with by forming a tensor product smooth. The smoothing parameters were estimated by optimizing either the Laplace approximate marginal likelihood criterion or the likelihood cross-validation criterion. The regression parameters were estimated by direct maximization of the penalized likelihood of the survival model, which avoids data augmentation and the Poisson likelihood approach. The implementation proposed was evaluated on simulations and applied to real data. It was found to be numerically stable, efficient and useful for choosing the appropriate degree of complexity in overall survival and net survival contexts; moreover, it simplified the model building process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207