MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992396062 · doi:10.1002/sim.8413

Association measures for clustered competing risks

2019· article· en· W2992396062 on OpenAlexafffund
Chien‐Lin Su, Lajmi Lakhal‐Chaieb

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
FundersCentre de Recherches Mathématiques
KeywordsEstimatorMultivariate statisticsStatisticsProportional hazards modelCopula (linguistics)Expectation–maximization algorithmEconometricsHazard ratioMarginal modelBone marrow transplantationSample size determinationOdds ratioMaximizationMathematicsComputer scienceConfidence intervalMedicineRegression analysisMaximum likelihoodInternal medicineTransplantationMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a semiparameteric model for multivariate clustered competing risks data when the cause-specific failure times and the occurrence of competing risk events among subjects within the same cluster are of interest. The cause-specific hazard functions are assumed to follow Cox proportional hazard models, and the associations between failure times given the same or different cause events and the associations between occurrences of competing risk events within the same cluster are investigated through copula models. A cross-odds ratio measure is explored under our proposed models. Two-stage estimation procedure is proposed in which the marginal models are estimated in the first stage, and the dependence parameters are estimated via an expectation-maximization algorithm in the second stage. The proposed estimators are shown to yield consistent and asymptotically normal under mild regularity conditions. Simulation studies are conducted to assess finite sample performance of the proposed method. The proposed technique is demonstrated through an application to a multicenter Bone Marrow transplantation dataset.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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