Case-Base Neural Networks: survival analysis with time-varying, higher-order interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of survival analysis, data-driven neural network-based methods have been developed to model complex covariate effects. While these methods may provide better predictive performance than regression-based approaches, not all can model time-varying interactions and complex baseline hazards. To address this, we propose Case-Base Neural Networks (CBNNs) as a new approach that combines the case-base sampling framework with flexible neural network architectures. Using a novel sampling scheme and data augmentation to naturally account for censoring, we construct a feed-forward neural network that includes time as an input. CBNNs predict the probability of an event occurring at a given moment to estimate the full hazard function. We compare the performance of CBNNs to regression and neural network-based survival methods in a simulation and three case studies using two time-dependent metrics. First, we examine performance on a simulation involving a complex baseline hazard and time-varying interactions to assess all methods, with CBNN outperforming competitors. Then, we apply all methods to three real data applications, with CBNNs outperforming the competing models in two studies and showing similar performance in the third. Our results highlight the benefit of combining case-base sampling with deep learning to provide a simple and flexible framework for data-driven modeling of single event survival outcomes that estimates time-varying effects and a complex baseline hazard by design. An R package is available at https://github.com/Jesse-Islam/cbnn.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".