MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969865418 · doi:10.1002/sim.8345

On estimands arising from misspecified semiparametric rate‐based analysis of recurrent episodic conditions

2019· article· en· W2969865418 on OpenAlexafffund
Jooyoung Lee, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsEstimatorEconometricsSemiparametric modelStatisticsAsymptotic distributionMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marginal rate-based analyses are widely used for the analysis of recurrent events in clinical trials. In many areas of application, the events are not instantaneous but rather signal the onset of a symptomatic episode representing a recurrent infection, respiratory exacerbation, or bout of acute depression. In rate-based analyses, it is unclear how to best handle the time during which individuals are experiencing symptoms and hence are not at risk. We derive the limiting value of the Nelson-Aalen estimator and estimators of the regression coefficients under a semiparametric rate-based model in terms of an underlying two-state process. We investigate the impact of the distribution of the episode durations, heterogeneity, and dependence on the asymptotic and finite sample properties of standard estimators. We also consider the impact of these features on power in trials designed to test intervention effects on rate functions. An application to a trial of individuals with herpes simplex virus is given for illustration.

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)0.172
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.482
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1720.482
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207