Continuous threshold models with two‐way interactions in survival analysis
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 Proportional hazards model with the biomarker–treatment interaction plays an important role in the survival analysis of the subset treatment effect. A threshold parameter for a continuous biomarker variable defines the subset of patients who can benefit or lose from a certain new treatment. In this article, we focus on a continuous threshold effect using the rectified linear unit and propose a gradient descent method to obtain the maximum likelihood estimation of the regression coefficients and the threshold parameter simultaneously. Under certain regularity conditions, we prove the consistency, asymptotic normality and provide a robust estimate of the covariance matrix when the model is misspecified. To illustrate the finite sample properties of the proposed methods, we simulate data to evaluate the empirical biases, the standard errors and the coverage probabilities for both the correctly specified models and misspecified models. The proposed continuous threshold model is applied to a prostate cancer data with serum prostatic acid phosphatase as a biomarker.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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