Estimation of the additive hazards model with interval‐censored data and missing covariates
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The additive hazards model is one of the most commonly used regression models in the analysis of failure time data and many methods have been developed for its inference in various situations. However, no established estimation procedure exists when there are covariates with missing values and the observed responses are interval‐censored; both types of complications arise in various settings including demographic, epidemiological, financial, medical and sociological studies. To address this deficiency, we propose several inverse probability weight‐based and reweighting‐based estimation procedures for the situation where covariate values are missing at random. The resulting estimators of regression model parameters are shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal. The numerical results that we report from a simulation study suggest that the proposed methods work well in practical situations. An application to a childhood cancer survival study is provided. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 499–517; 2020 © 2020 Statistical Society of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it