Causal inference for recurrent event data using pseudo-observations
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
Recurrent event data are commonly encountered in observational studies where each subject may experience a particular event repeatedly over time. In this article, we aim to compare cumulative rate functions (CRFs) of two groups when treatment assignment may depend on the unbalanced distribution of confounders. Several estimators based on pseudo-observations are proposed to adjust for the confounding effects, namely inverse probability of treatment weighting estimator, regression model-based estimators, and doubly robust estimators. The proposed marginal regression estimator and doubly robust estimators based on pseudo-observations are shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal. A bootstrap approach is proposed for the variance estimation of the proposed estimators. Model diagnostic plots of residuals are presented to assess the goodness-of-fit for the proposed regression models. A family of adjusted two-sample pseudo-score tests is proposed to compare two CRFs. Simulation studies are conducted to assess finite sample performance of the proposed method. The proposed technique is demonstrated through an application to a hospital readmission data set.
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 | 0.022 |
| 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