Two‐phase designs with current status data
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
We consider the design and analysis of two-phase studies aiming to assess the relation between a fixed (eg, genetic) marker and an event time under current status observation. We consider a common setting in which a phase I sample is comprised of a large cohort of individuals with outcome (ie, current status) data and a vector of inexpensive covariates. Stored biospecimens for individuals in the phase I sample can be assayed to record the marker of interest for individuals selected in a phase II sub-sample. The design challenge is then to select the phase II sub-sample in order to maximize the precision of the marker effect on the time of interest under a proportional hazards model. This problem has not been examined before for current status data and the role of the assessment time is highlighted. Inference based on likelihood and inverse probability weighted estimating functions are considered, with designs centered on score-based residuals, extreme current status observations, or stratified sampling schemes. Data from a registry of patients with psoriatic arthritis is used in an illustration where we study the risk of diabetes as a comorbidity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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