MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009924189 · doi:10.1002/sim.8517

Mitigating bias from intermittent measurement of time‐dependent covariates in failure time analysis

2020· article· en· W3009924189 on OpenAlexafffund
Shu Jiang, Richard J. Cook, Leilei Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEstimatorCovariateProportional hazards modelStatisticsRegression analysisComputer scienceRegressionLinear regressionEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cox regression models are routinely fitted to examine the association between time-dependent markers and a failure time when analyzing data from clinical registries. Typically, the marker values are measured periodically at clinic visits with the recorded value carried forward until the next assessment. We examine the asymptotic behavior of estimators from Cox regression models under this observation and data handling scheme when the true relationship is based on a Cox model using the current value of the marker. Specifically, we explore the impact of the marker process dynamics, the clinic visit intensity, and the marginal failure rate on the limiting value of the estimator of the marker effect from the Cox model. We also illustrate how a joint multistate model that accommodates intermittent observation of the time-varying marker can be formulated. Simulation studies demonstrate that the finite sample performance of the naive estimator aligns with the asymptotic results and shows good performance of the estimators from the joint model. We apply both methods to data from a study of bone markers and their effect on the development of skeletal complications in metastatic cancer.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.351
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.351
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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