MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008466225 · doi:10.1002/sta4.280

A note on the applicability of the standard nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator for combined incident and prevalent cohort data

2020· article· en· W3008466225 on OpenAlexafffund
James H. McVittie, David B. Wolfson, David A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorNonparametric statisticsStatisticsCohortEconometricsKaplan–Meier estimatorMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonparametric estimation of the survival function for either incident or prevalent cohort failure time data, exclusively, has been well studied in the literature; the Kaplan‐Meier (KM) estimator is routinely used for right‐censored incident cohort failure time data, whereas a modified form of the KM estimator, sometimes referred to as the Tsai–Jewell–Wang (TJW) estimator, is the default estimator used for prevalent cohort data with follow‐up. Often, failure time data comprise observations from a combination of incident and prevalent cohorts. In this note, we justify the use of the TJW estimator for a combined sample of incident and prevalent cohort data with follow‐up. We suggest how the TJW estimator forms the basis for density estimation and hypothesis testing problems, when incident and prevalent cohorts are combined.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207