MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986248248 · doi:10.1002/sim.8852

Model diagnostics for censored regression via randomized survival probabilities

2020· article· en· W2986248248 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsResidualQuantileStatistical hypothesis testingRegressionRegression analysisNonlinear regressionNonlinear systemStudentized residualAccelerated failure time model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residuals in normal regression are used to assess a model's goodness-of-fit (GOF) and discover directions for improving the model. However, there is a lack of residuals with a characterized reference distribution for censored regression. In this article, we propose to diagnose censored regression with normalized randomized survival probabilities (RSP). The key idea of RSP is to replace the survival probability (SP) of a censored failure time with a uniform random number between 0 and the SP of the censored time. We prove that RSPs always have the uniform distribution on (0, 1) under the true model with the true generating parameters. Therefore, we can transform RSPs into normally distributed residuals with the normal quantile function. We call such residuals by normalized RSP (NRSP residuals). We conduct simulation studies to investigate the sizes and powers of statistical tests based on NRSP residuals in detecting the incorrect choice of distribution family and nonlinear effect in covariates. Our simulation studies show that, although the GOF tests with NRSP residuals are not as powerful as a traditional GOF test method, a nonlinear test based on NRSP residuals has significantly higher power in detecting nonlinearity. We also compared these model diagnostics methods with a breast-cancer recurrent-free time dataset. The results show that the NRSP residual diagnostics successfully captures a subtle nonlinear relationship in the dataset, which is not detected by the graphical diagnostics with CS residuals and existing GOF tests.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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