Unified estimation for Cox regression model with nonmonotone missing at random covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates a unified estimator for Cox regression model (Cox, 1972) when covariate data are missing at random (Rubin, 1976). It extends the idea of using parametric working models (Zhao and Liu, 2021) to extract the partial information contained in the incomplete observations. The working models are flexible and convenient to deal with nonmonotone missing data patterns. It can also incorporate auxiliary variables into the analysis to reduce estimation bias and improve efficiency. The unified estimator is consistent and more efficient than the (weighted) complete case estimator. Similar to multiple imputation (MI) method (Rubin, 1987 and 1996), the proposed method is also based on standard (weighted) complete data analysis and can be easily implemented in standard software. Simulation studies comparing the unified estimator with the substantive model compatible modification of the fully conditional specification MI (SMC-FCS) estimator (Bartlett et al., 2015) in various settings indicate that the unified estimator is consistent and as efficient as SMC-FCS estimator. Data from a clinical trial in patients with early breast cancer are analyzed for illustration.
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 | 0.025 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".