Dynamic prediction of time to a clinical event with sparse and irregularly measured longitudinal biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical research and practice, landmark models are commonly used to predict the risk of an adverse future event, using patients' longitudinal biomarker data as predictors. However, these data are often observable only at intermittent visits, making their measurement times irregularly spaced and unsynchronized across different subjects. This poses challenges to conducting dynamic prediction at any post-baseline time. A simple solution is the last-value-carry-forward method, but this may result in bias for the risk model estimation and prediction. Another option is to jointly model the longitudinal and survival processes with a shared random effects model. However, when dealing with multiple biomarkers, this approach often results in high-dimensional integrals without a closed-form solution, and thus the computational burden limits its software development and practical use. In this article, we propose to process the longitudinal data by functional principal component analysis techniques, and then use the processed information as predictors in a class of flexible linear transformation models to predict the distribution of residual time-to-event occurrence. The measurement schemes for multiple biomarkers are allowed to be different within subject and across subjects. Dynamic prediction can be performed in a real-time fashion. The advantages of our proposed method are demonstrated by simulation studies. We apply our approach to the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, predicting patients' risk of kidney failure or death by using four important longitudinal biomarkers for renal functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".