Guidance for practitioners on the choices of software implementation for frailty models: Simulations and an application in determining the birth interval dynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clustered survival analysis applications, researchers frequently fit frailty models using parametric and nonparametric approaches to obtain the estimates for the parameters associated with the survival model covariates and heterogeneity (frailty). Availability of the off- the-shelve implementations and freely available R software packages makes it convenient for the practitioners to fit these complicated models easily. Even though there has been a couple of studies assessing the stability of the older packages (e.g., survival, coxme) under a variety of scenarios, some of the newer implementations (e.g., frailtySurv, JM and parfm) have not gone through similar rigorous assessment. It is worth evaluating these new software implementations, and comparing them with the older packages. In the current work, via simulations, we will examine the estimates from all of these popularly used software implementations under a variety of scenarios when the corresponding assumptions related to the baseline hazard and frailty distributions are misspecified. Additionally, true heterogeneity parameter, censoring patterns and number of clusters were varied in the simulations to assess respective impacts on the estimates. From these simulations, we observed that when there is a large number of clusters and mild censoring, Cox PH frailty models fitted using a newer semiparametric estimation technique (from the frailtySurv package) produced regression and heterogeneity parameter estimates that were associated with unusually large bias and variability. On the other hand, when the true heterogeneity parameter is substantially large, the Cox PH frailty models fitted using the coxme package were often producing highly variable estimates of the heterogeneity parameter. The simulation findings then guided our choice of appropriate frailty model in the context of determining the birth interval dynamics in Bangladesh.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it