Variable selection for proportional hazards models with high‐dimensional covariates subject to measurement error
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 Methods of analyzing survival data with high‐dimensional covariates are often challenged by the presence of measurement error in covariates, a common issue arising from various applications. Conducting naive analysis with measurement‐error effects ignored usually gives biased results. However, relatively little research has been focused on this topic. In this article, we consider this important problem and discuss variable selection for proportional hazards models with high‐dimensional covariates subject to measurement error. We propose a penalized “corrected” likelihood‐based method to simultaneously address the measurement‐error effects and perform variable selection. We establish theoretical results including the consistency, the oracle property and the asymptotic distribution of the proposed estimator. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the finite sample performance of the proposed method. To illustrate the use of our method, we apply the proposed method to analyze a dataset arising from the breast cancer study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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