MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163155380 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2021.1.003

Simulation of generalized Gamma distribution with maximum likelihood estimation and expectation-maximization algorithm on right censored data type 1

2021· article· en· W3163155380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dian Kurniasari, Warsono Warsono, N Indryani, Mustofa Usman, Sutopo Hadi

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectation–maximization algorithmEstimatorStatisticsMathematicsGeneralized gamma distributionGamma distributionFunction (biology)Statistical inferenceHazard ratioHazardLikelihood functionInferenceAlgorithmEstimation theoryMaximum likelihoodComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Generalized Gamma distribution is very suitable for modeling data with various forms of hazard (risk) functions, which makes the Generalized Gamma distribution useful in survival analysis. Survival analysis aims are to predict chances of survival, disease recurrence, death, and other events over a period of time. One characteristic of survival data is the possibility of sensors. Let X be the life span of the person being studied and the right censorship time of Cr, X is assumed to be independent with the probability density function f(x), the survival function S(x), and the hazard function h(x). A person's X life span will be known if X is less than or equal to Cr. If X is greater than Cr, the individual X survives or is censored right now. Statistical inference, especially parameter estimation is needed in analyzing empirical data. Obviously the estimation results obtained are expected to be a good estimator, namely to meet the nature of unbiased and minimum variance. This paper will discuss the results of the estimation of Generalized Gamma distribution parameters with type 1 right censored data through simulations using the Expectation Maximization method and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method. The simulation is conducted by generating data with the sample size: 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 as well as determining censored data of 10%, 20% and 30% by first setting the parameters used which are obtained from the data of patients with gastric cancer namely α = 1.0649, β = 1,072, θ = 59.766. Based on the results obtained from the simulations on the two estimation methods that the parameter estimation using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method is better than the Expectation Maximization method because it provides a smaller bias and MSE value where the larger the sample size used, the estimated parameter value will get closer to the parameter in fact. In addition, the Expectation Maximization method can also be used as an alternative estimation of generalized gamma distribution parameters with type 1 right censored data because it has a bias value and MSE approaching the MLE method.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207