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 OpenAlexaff
Yanling Jin, Thanh G.N. Ton, Devin Incerti, Sylvia Hu

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.060

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical StatisticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207