Accounting for Competing Events When Evaluating Long-Term Outcomes in Survivors of Critical Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical trajectory of survivors of critical illness after hospital discharge can be complex and highly unpredictable. Assessing long-term outcomes after critical illness can be challenging because of possible competing events, such as all-cause death during follow-up (which precludes the occurrence of an event of particular interest). In this perspective, we explore challenges and methodological implications of competing events during the assessment of long-term outcomes in survivors of critical illness. In the absence of competing events, researchers evaluating long-term outcomes commonly use the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model to analyze time-to-event (survival) data. However, traditional analytical and modeling techniques can yield biased estimates in the presence of competing events. We present different estimands of interest and the use of different analytical approaches, including changes to the outcome of interest, Fine and Gray regression models, cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models, and generalized methods (such as inverse probability weighting). Finally, we provide code and a simulated dataset to exemplify the application of the different analytical strategies in addition to overall reporting recommendations.
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 | 0.294 | 0.527 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".