A Hierarchical Approach to Multi-Event Survival Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In multi-event survival analysis, one aims to predict the probability of multiple different events occurring over some time horizon. One typically assumes that the timing of events is drawn from some distribution conditioned on an individual's covariates. However, during training, one does not have access to this distribution, and the natural variation in the observed event times makes the task of survival prediction challenging, on top of the potential interdependence among events. To address this issue, we introduce a novel approach for multi-event survival analysis that models the probability of event occurrence hierarchically at different time scales, using coarse predictions (e.g., monthly predictions) to iteratively guide predictions at finer and finer grained time scales (e.g., daily predictions). We evaluate the proposed approach across several publicly available datasets in terms of both intra-event, inter-individual (global) and intra-individual, inter-event (local) consistency. We show that the proposed method consistently outperforms well-accepted and commonly used approaches to multi-event survival analysis. When estimating survival curves for Alzheimer's disease and mortality, our approach achieves a C-index of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) and a local consistency score of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) compared to a C-index of 0.75 (95% CI 0.70-0.80) and a local consistency score of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.97) when modeling each event separately. Overall, our approach improves the accuracy of survival predictions by iteratively reducing the original task to a set of nested, simpler subtasks.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".