MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110632768 · doi:10.1002/pst.2082

Joint analysis of longitudinal measurements and survival times with a cure fraction based on partly linear mixed and semiparametric cure models

2020· article· en· W3110632768 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lu Yang, Hui Song, Yingwei Peng, Dongsheng Tu

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRandom effects modelMixed modelSemiparametric modelInferenceClinical trialTrajectorySemiparametric regressionSurvival analysisHazard ratioFraction (chemistry)Longitudinal studyMathematicsStatisticsMedicineEconometricsComputer scienceRegression analysisConfidence intervalInternal medicineParametric statisticsArtificial intelligenceMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a joint analysis of longitudinal quality of life (QoL) scores and relapse-free survival (RFS) times from a clinical trial on early breast cancer conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, we observed a complicated trajectory of QoL scores and existence of long-term survivors. Motivated by this observation, we proposed in this paper a flexible joint model for the longitudinal measurements and survival times. A partly linear mixed effect model is used to capture the complicated but smooth trajectory of longitudinal measurements and approximated by B-splines and a semiparametric mixture cure model with the B-spline baseline hazard to model survival times with a cure fraction. These two models are linked by shared random effects to explore the dependence between longitudinal measurements and survival times. A semiparametric inference procedure with an EM algorithm is proposed to estimate the parameters in the joint model. The performance of proposed procedures are evaluated by simulation studies and through the application to the analysis of data from the clinical trial which motivated this research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.422
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.015 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207