A case study of competing risk analysis in the presence of missing 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
Observational data with missing or incomplete data are common in biomedical research.Multiple imputation is an effective approach to handle missing data with the ability to decrease bias while increasing statistical power and efficiency.In recent years propensity score (PS) matching has been increasingly used in observational studies to estimate treatment effect as it can reduce confounding due to measured baseline covariates.In this paper, we describe in detail approaches to competing risk analysis in the setting of incomplete observational data when using PS matching.First, we used multiple imputation to impute several missing variables simultaneously, then conducted propensity-score matching to match statin-exposed patients with those unexposed.Afterwards, we assessed the effect of statin exposure on the risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations or emergency visits by estimating both relative and absolute effects.Collectively, we provided a general methodological framework to assess treatment effect in incomplete observational data.In addition, we presented a practical approach to produce overall cumulative incidence function (CIF) based on estimates from multiple imputed and PS-matched samples.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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