SemiParametric Analysis of Competing Risks Data
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
Abstract Competing risks data are typically encountered in biomedical/epidemiological studies. Examples of such data can be found in studying labor in women as labor can be either spontaneous or due to medical intervention (example: delivery by cesarean) or due to membrane rupture leading to labor. Typically in competing risks framework, each individual is exposed to K distinct types of risks and the eventual failure can be attributed to precisely one of the risks. As is usual in survival data, these competing risks data are further subjected to censoring. Two quantities of considerable interest include, the cause‐specific hazard and the corresponding cumulative incidence function for a specific cause. In this article, we will review various modeling approaches for assessing the effects of covariates through modeling cause‐specific hazard. We will also discuss various approaches for constructing confidence intervals as well as confidence bands for the cause‐specific cumulative incidence function of subjects with given values of the covariates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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