A threshold-free summary index of prediction accuracy for censored time to event data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction performance of a risk scoring system needs to be carefully assessed before its adoption in clinical practice. Clinical preventive care often uses risk scores to screen asymptomatic population. The primary clinical interest is to predict the risk of having an event by a prespecified future time t0 . Accuracy measures such as positive predictive values have been recommended for evaluating the predictive performance. However, for commonly used continuous or ordinal risk score systems, these measures require a subjective cutoff threshold value that dichotomizes the risk scores. The need for a cutoff value created barriers for practitioners and researchers. In this paper, we propose a threshold-free summary index of positive predictive values that accommodates time-dependent event status and competing risks. We develop a nonparametric estimator and provide an inference procedure for comparing this summary measure between 2 risk scores for censored time to event data. We conduct a simulation study to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed estimation and inference procedures. Lastly, we illustrate the use of this measure on a real data example, comparing 2 risk score systems for predicting heart failure in childhood cancer survivors.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads 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".