MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322495979 · doi:10.1002/bimj.202100322

Bayesian estimation of two‐part joint models for a longitudinal semicontinuous biomarker and a terminal event with INLA: Interests for cancer clinical trial evaluation

2023· article· en· W4322495979 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Rustand, Janet van Niekerk, Håvard Rue, Christophe Tournigand, Virginie Rondeau, Laurent Briollais

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut National Du CancerNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceBayesian probabilityEstimatorEvent (particle physics)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsBayesian inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-part joint models for a longitudinal semicontinuous biomarker and a terminal event have been recently introduced based on frequentist estimation. The biomarker distribution is decomposed into a probability of positive value and the expected value among positive values. Shared random effects can represent the association structure between the biomarker and the terminal event. The computational burden increases compared to standard joint models with a single regression model for the biomarker. In this context, the frequentist estimation implemented in the R package frailtypack can be challenging for complex models (i.e., a large number of parameters and dimension of the random effects). As an alternative, we propose a Bayesian estimation of two-part joint models based on the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) algorithm to alleviate the computational burden and fit more complex models. Our simulation studies confirm that INLA provides accurate approximation of posterior estimates and to reduced computation time and variability of estimates compared to frailtypack in the situations considered. We contrast the Bayesian and frequentist approaches in the analysis of two randomized cancer clinical trials (GERCOR and PRIME studies), where INLA has a reduced variability for the association between the biomarker and the risk of event. Moreover, the Bayesian approach was able to characterize subgroups of patients associated with different responses to treatment in the PRIME study. Our study suggests that the Bayesian approach using the INLA algorithm enables to fit complex joint models that might be of interest in a wide range of clinical applications.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.484
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrical JournalSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207