Survival analysis under the Cox proportional hazards model with pooled covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a continuous time-to-event outcome and an expensive-to-measure exposure, we develop a pooling design and propose a likelihood-based approach to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) of a Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. Our proposed approach fits a PH model based on pooled exposures with individually observed time-to-event outcomes. The design and estimation exploits the equivalence of the conditional logistic likelihood functions arising from a matched case-control study and the partial likelihood function of a riskset-matched, nested case-control (NCC) subset of a cohort study. To create the pools, we first focus on an NCC subcohort. Pools are formed at random while keeping the matching intact. Pool-level exposure and confounders are then evaluated and used in the likelihood to estimate the HR and the standard error of the estimates. The estimators are MLEs, provide consistent estimates of the individual-level HRs, and are asymptotically normal. Our simulation results indicate that the pooled estimates are comparable to the estimates obtained from the NCC subcohort. The units of analysis for the pooled design are the pools and not the individual participants. Hence the effective sample size is reduced. Therefore, the variance of the HR estimate increases with increasing poolsize. However, this variance inflation in small samples can be offset by including more matched controls per case within the NCC subcohort. An application is demonstrated with the Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) 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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".