Statistical Powers of Some Tests for Checking Homogeneity of Survival Distributions with Disjointed Ends in the Presence of Censoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considered the comparison of some tests for assessing the overall homogeneity of Kaplan-Meier survival curves under low and high censoring rates when the curves are disjointed towards the end. The performances of these tests were measured by their statistical powers. Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to evaluate and numerically compare the relative performances of Log-rank,Wilcoxon, Tarone-Ware, Peto-Peto, Modified Peto-Peto, the Fleming-Harrington (1,1), and the Babalola-Adeleke tests. The result obtained shows that the Babalola-Adeleke and Fleming-Harrington (1,1) tests have more robust performances than the other five popular tests with relatively high power in detecting differences when the censoring rates in the groups are both low and high. The highest overall average powers under low and high censoring rates were produced by Babalola-Adeleke and Fleming-Harrington (1,1) tests respectively. Hence, these two tests are the most suitable tests for diagnosing homogeneity of survival curves under these conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".