MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002225653 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12409

Cox regression of clustered event times with covariates missing not at random

2019· article· en· W3002225653 on OpenAlexafffund
Li Liu, Yanyan Liu, Yi Xiong, X. Joan Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCovariateEstimatorMathematicsStatisticsProportional hazards modelMissing dataEconometricsRegression analysisRegressionRandom effects modelEvent (particle physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivated by a recent tuberculosis (TB) study, this paper is concerned with covariates missing not at random (MNAR) and models the potential intracluster correlation by a frailty. We consider the regression analysis of right‐censored event times from clustered subjects under a Cox proportional hazards frailty model and present the semiparametric maximum likelihood estimator (SPMLE) of the model parameters. An easy‐to‐implement pseudo‐SPMLE is then proposed to accommodate more realistic situations using readily available supplementary information on the missing covariates. Algorithms are provided to compute the estimators and their consistent variance estimators. We demonstrate that both the SPMLE and the pseudo‐SPMLE are consistent and asymptotically normal by the arguments based on the theory of modern empirical processes. The proposed approach is examined numerically via simulation and illustrated with an analysis of the motivating TB study data.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.047
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207