MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003854185 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11633

Assessing the calibration of subdistribution hazard models in discrete time

2021· preprint· en· W3003854185 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)CovariateCalibrationHazardGeneralizationStatisticsEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalization performance of a risk prediction model can be evaluated by its calibration, which measures the agreement between predicted and observed outcomes on external validation data. Here, we propose methods for assessing the calibration of discrete time‐to‐event models in the presence of competing risks. Specifically, we consider the class of discrete subdistribution hazard models, which directly relate the cumulative incidence function of one event of interest to a set of covariates. We apply the methods to a prediction model for the development of nosocomial pneumonia. Simulation studies show that the methods are strong tools for calibration assessment even in scenarios with a high censoring rate and/or a large number of discrete time points.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.242 · 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