Cross-validatory Z-Residual for Diagnosing Shared Frailty Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residual diagnostic methods play a critical role in assessing model assumptions and detecting outliers in statistical modelling. In the context of survival models with censored observations, Li et al. (2021) introduced the Z-residual, which follows an approximately normal distribution under the true model. This property makes it possible to use Z-residuals for diagnosing survival models in a way similar to how Pearson residuals are used in normal regression. However, computing residuals based on the full dataset can result in a conservative bias that reduces the power of detecting model mis-specification, as the same dataset is used for both model fitting and validation. Although cross-validation is a potential solution to this problem, it has not been commonly used in residual diagnostics due to computational challenges. In this paper, we propose a cross-validation approach for computing Z-residuals in the context of shared frailty models. Specifically, we develop a general function that calculates cross-validatory Z-residuals using the output from the \texttt{coxph} function in the \texttt{survival} package in R.Our simulation studies demonstrate that, for goodness-of-fit tests and outlier detection, cross-validatory Z-residuals are significantly more powerful and more discriminative than Z-residuals without cross-validation. We also compare the performance of Z-residuals with and without cross-validation in identifying outliers in a real application that models the recurrence time of kidney infection patients. Our findings suggest that cross-validatory Z-residuals can identify outliers that are missed by Z-residuals without cross-validation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".