MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306412229 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11737

A generalized single‐index linear threshold model for identifying treatment‐sensitive subsets based on multiple covariates and longitudinal measurements

2022· article· en· W4306412229 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Xinyi Ge, Yingwei Peng, Dongsheng Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cancer SocietyQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovariateCategorical variableGeneralized estimating equationEstimating equationsInferenceGeneralized linear modelMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Identification of a subset of patients who may be sensitive to a specific treatment is an important step towards personalized medicine. We consider the case where the effect of a treatment is assessed by longitudinal measurements, which may be continuous or categorical, such as quality of life scores assessed over the duration of a clinical trial. We assume that multiple baseline covariates, such as age and expression levels of genes, are available, and propose a generalized single‐index linear threshold model to identify the treatment‐sensitive subset and assess the treatment‐by‐subset interaction after combining these covariates. Because the model involves an indicator function with unknown parameters, conventional procedures are difficult to apply for inferences of the parameters in the model. We define smoothed generalized estimating equations and propose an inference procedure based on these equations with an efficient spectral algorithm to find their solutions. The proposed procedure is evaluated through simulation studies and an application to the analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial in advanced pancreatic cancer.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.360
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.010 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207