Variable Selection for Nonlinear Cox Regression Model via Deep Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variable selection problem for the nonlinear Cox regression model is considered. In survival analysis, one main objective is to identify the covariates that are associated with the risk of experiencing the event of interest. The Cox proportional hazard model is being used extensively in survival analysis in studying the relationship between survival times and covariates, where the model assumes that the covariate has a log-linear effect on the hazard function. However, this linearity assumption may not be satisfied in practice. In order to extract a representative subset of features, various variable selection approaches have been proposed for survival data under the linear Cox model. However, there exists little literature on variable selection for the nonlinear Cox model. To break this gap, we extend the recently developed deep learning-based variable selection model LassoNet to survival data. Simulations are provided to demonstrate the validity and effectiveness of the proposed method. Finally, we apply the proposed methodology to analyze a real data set on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it