MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309098329 · doi:10.1111/biom.13792

Instrumental Variable Estimation of the Causal Hazard Ratio

2022· article· en· W4309098329 on OpenAlexafffund
Linbo Wang, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Torben Martinussen, Stijn Vansteelandt

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsInstrumental variableEstimationStatisticsVariable (mathematics)Hazard ratioEconometricsMathematicsComputer scienceEconomicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal hazard ratio in the presence of unmeasured confounding factors. Our approach is based on a binary instrumental variable, and an additional no-interaction assumption in a first-stage regression of the treatment on the IV and unmeasured confounders. We propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first consistent estimator of the (population) causal hazard ratio within an instrumental variable framework. A version of our estimator admits a closed-form representation. We derive the asymptotic distribution of our estimator and provide a consistent estimator for its asymptotic variance. Our approach is illustrated via simulation studies and a data application.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207