Dynamic prediction with time‐dependent marker in survival analysis using supervised functional principal component analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-varying biomarkers reflect important information on disease progression over time. Dynamic prediction for event occurrence on a real-time basis, utilizing time-varying information, is crucial in making accurate clinical decisions. Functional principal component analysis (FPCA) has been widely adopted in the literature for extracting features from time-varying biomarker trajectories. However, feature extraction via FPCA is conducted independent of the time-to-event response, which may not produce optimal results when the goal lies in prediction. With this consideration, we propose a novel supervised FPCA, where the functional principal components are determined to optimize the association between the time-varying biomarker and time-to-event outcome. The proposed framework also accommodates irregularly spaced and sparse longitudinal data. Our method is empirically shown to retain better discrimination and calibration performance than the unsupervised FPCA method in simulation studies. Application of the proposed method is also illustrated in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".