Investigating the appropriateness of different concordance measures in a time‐to‐event setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prediction models that assess a patient's risk of an event are used to inform treatment options and confirm screening tests. The concordance (c) statistic is one measure to validate the accuracy of these models, but has many extensions when applied to censored data. The purpose was to determine which c-statistic is most accurate at different rates of censoring. METHODS: A simulation study was conducted for n = 750, and censoring rates of 20%, 50%, and 80%. The mean of three different concordance definitions were compared as well as the mean of three different c-statistics, including one, parametric c-statistic for exponentially distributed data, developed by the authors. The SE was also calculated but was of secondary interest. RESULTS: The c-statistic developed by the authors yielded the a mean closest to the gold standard concordance measure when censoring is present in data, even when the exponentially distributed parametric assumptions do not hold. Similar results were found for SE. CONCLUSIONS: The c-statistic developed by the authors appears to be the most robust to censored data. Thus, it is recommended to use this c-statistic to validate prediction models applied to censored data. This will improve the reliability and comparability across future time-to-event studies.
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 | 0.217 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".