Comparing Kaplan‐Meier curves with the probability of agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probability of agreement has been used as an effective strategy for quantifying the similarity between the reliability of two populations. By contrast to hypothesis testing approaches based on P-values, the probability of agreement provides a more realistic assessment of similarity by emphasizing practically important differences. In this article, we propose the use of the probability of agreement to evaluate the similarity of two Kaplan-Meier curves, which estimate the survival functions in two populations. This article extends the probability of agreement paradigm to right censored data and explores three different methods of quantifying uncertainty in the probability of agreement estimate. The first approach provides a convenient assessment based on large-sample normal-theory (LSNT), while the other two approaches are nonparametric alternatives based on ordinary and fractional random-weight bootstrap (FRWB) techniques. All methods are illustrated with examples for which comparing the survival curves of related populations is of interest and the efficacy of the methods are also evaluated through simulation studies. Based on these simulations we recommend point estimation using the proposed LSNT calculation and confidence interval estimation via the FRWB approach. We also provide a Shiny app that facilitates an automated implementation of the methodology.
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 | 0.096 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".