MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307835686 · doi:10.1177/09622802221134172

Bayesian inference for Cox proportional hazard models with partial likelihoods, nonlinear covariate effects and correlated observations

2022· article· en· W4307835686 on OpenAlexaff
Ziang Zhang, Alex Stringer, Patrick Brown, James E. Stafford

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateLaplace's methodMarkov chain Monte CarloBayesian probabilityInferenceParametric statisticsProportional hazards modelComputer scienceBayesian inferenceMathematicsEconometricsApplied mathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a flexible and scalable approximate Bayesian inference methodology for the Cox Proportional Hazards model with partial likelihood. The model we consider includes nonlinear covariate effects and correlated survival times. The proposed method is based on nested approximations and adaptive quadrature, and the computational burden of working with the log-partial likelihood is mitigated through automatic differentiation and Laplace approximation. We provide two simulation studies to show the accuracy of the proposed approach, compared with the existing methods. We demonstrate the practical utility of our method and its computational advantages over Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods through the analysis of Kidney infection times, which are paired, and the analysis of Leukemia survival times with a semi-parametric covariate effect and spatial variation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207