A two‐level copula joint model for joint analysis of longitudinal and competing risks data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we propose a two-level copula joint model to analyze clinical data with multiple disparate continuous longitudinal outcomes and multiple event-times in the presence of competing risks. At the first level, we use a copula to model the dependence between competing latent event-times, in the process constructing the submodel for the observed event-time, and employ the Gaussian copula to construct the submodel for the longitudinal outcomes that accounts for their conditional dependence; these submodels are glued together at the second level via the Gaussian copula to construct a joint model that incorporates conditional dependence between the observed event-time and the longitudinal outcomes. To have the flexibility to accommodate skewed data and examine possibly different covariate effects on quantiles of a non-Gaussian outcome, we propose linear quantile mixed models for the continuous longitudinal data. We adopt a Bayesian framework for model estimation and inference via Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling. We examine the performance of the copula joint model through a simulation study and show that our proposed method outperforms the conventional approach assuming conditional independence with smaller biases and better coverage probabilities of the Bayesian credible intervals. Finally, we carry out an analysis of clinical data on renal transplantation for illustration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".