Finite sample variance estimation for optimal dynamic treatment regimes of survival outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deriving valid confidence intervals for complex estimators is a challenging task in practice. Estimators of dynamic weighted survival modeling (DWSurv), a method to estimate an optimal dynamic treatment regime of censored outcomes, are asymptotically normal and consistent for their target parameters when at least a subset of the nuisance models is correctly specified. However, their behavior in finite samples and the impact of model misspecification on inferences remain unclear. In addition, the estimators' nonregularity may negatively affect the inferences under some specific data generating mechanisms. Our objective was to compare five methods, two asymptotic variance formulas (adjusting or not for the estimation of nuisance parameters) to three bootstrap approaches, to construct confidence intervals for the DWSurv parameters in finite samples. Via simulations, we considered practical scenarios, for example, when some nuisance models are misspecified or when nonregularity is problematic. We also compared the five methods in an application about the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We found that the bootstrap approaches performed consistently well at the cost of longer computational times. The asymptotic variance with adjustments generally yielded conservative confidence intervals. The asymptotic variance without adjustments yielded nominal coverages for large sample sizes. We recommend using the asymptotic variance with adjustments in small samples and the bootstrap if computationally feasible. Caution should be taken when nonregularity may be an issue.
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 | 0.046 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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; 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".