Comparison of survival analysis approaches to modelling age at first sex among youth in Kisesa Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies analyze sexual and reproductive event data using descriptive life tables. Survival analysis has better power to estimate factors associated with age at first sex (AFS), but proportional hazards models may not be right model to use. This study used accelerated failure time (AFT) models, restricted Mean Survival time model (RMST) models, with semi and non-parametric methods to assess age at first sex (AFS), factors associated with AFS, and verify underlying assumptions for each analysis. METHODS: Self-reported sexual debut data was used from respondents 15-24 years in eight cross-sectional surveys between 1994-2016, and from adolescents' survey in an observational community study (2019-2020) in northwest Tanzania. Median AFS was estimated in each survey using non-parametric and parametric models. Cox regression, AFT parametric models (exponential, gamma, generalized gamma, Gompertz, Weibull, log-normal and log-logistic), and RMST were used to estimate and identify factors associated with AFS. The models were compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), where lower values represent a better model fit. RESULTS: The results showed that in every survey, the Cox regression model had higher AIC and BIC compared to the other models. Overall, AFT had the best fit in every survey round. The estimated median AFS using the parametric and non-parametric methods were close. In the adolescent survey, log-logistic AFT showed that females and those attending secondary and higher education level had a longer time to first sex (Time ratio (TR) = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06, TR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02-1.08, respectively) compared to males and those who reported not being in school. Cell phone ownership (TR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.96), alcohol consumption (TR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93), and employed adolescents (TR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92-0.98) shortened time to first sex. CONCLUSION: The AFT model is better than Cox PH model in estimating AFS among the young population.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".