MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285732331 · doi:10.1002/pst.2257

Left truncation in linked data: A practical guide to understanding left truncation and applying it using <scp>SAS</scp> and R

2022· article· en· W4285732331 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersGenentech
KeywordsTruncation (statistics)MathematicsComputer scienceLeft behindStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-to-event data such as time to death are broadly used in medical research and drug development to understand the efficacy of a therapeutic. For time-to-event data, right censoring (data only observed up to a certain point of time) is common and easy to recognize. Methods that use right censored data, such as the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the Cox proportional hazard model, are well established. Time-to-event data can also be left truncated, which arises when patients are excluded from the sample because their events occur before a specific milestone, potentially resulting in an immortal time bias. For example, in a study evaluating the association between biomarker status and overall survival, patients who did not live long enough to receive a genomic test were not observed in the study. Left truncation causes selection bias and often leads to an overestimate of survival time. In this tutorial, we used a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database to demonstrate how to analyze left truncated and right censored data without bias using example code from SAS and R.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it