Feature screening with large‐scale and high‐dimensional survival data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data with a huge size present great challenges in modeling, inferences, and computation. In handling big data, much attention has been directed to settings with "large p small n", and relatively less work has been done to address problems with p and n being both large, though data with such a feature have now become more accessible than before, where p represents the number of variables and n stands for the sample size. The big volume of data does not automatically ensure good quality of inferences because a large number of unimportant variables may be collected in the process of gathering informative variables. To carry out valid statistical analysis, it is imperative to screen out noisy variables that have no predictive value for explaining the outcome variable. In this paper, we develop a screening method for handling large-sized survival data, where the sample size n is large and the dimension p of covariates is of non-polynomial order of the sample size n, or the so-called NP-dimension. We rigorously establish theoretical results for the proposed method and conduct numerical studies to assess its performance. Our research offers multiple extensions of existing work and enlarges the scope of high-dimensional data analysis. The proposed method capitalizes on the connections among useful regression settings and offers a computationally efficient screening procedure. Our method can be applied to different situations with large-scale data including genomic data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".