Weighted Trajectory Analysis and Application to Clinical Outcome Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kaplan–Meier (KM) estimator is widely used in medical research to estimate the survival function from lifetime data. KM estimation is a powerful tool to evaluate clinical trials due to simple computational requirements, its use of a logrank hypothesis test, and the ability to censor patients. However, KM estimation has several constraints and fails to generalize to ordinal variables of clinical interest, such as toxicity and ECOG performance. We devised weighted trajectory analysis (WTA) to combine the advantages of KM estimation with the ability to visualize and compare treatment groups for ordinal variables and fluctuating outcomes. To assess statistical significance, we developed a new hypothesis test analogous to the logrank test. We demonstrated the functionality of WTA through 1000-fold clinical trial simulations of unique stochastic models of chemotherapy toxicity and schizophrenia disease course. With increments in sample size and hazard ratio, we compared the performance of WTA to KM estimation and the generalized estimating equation (GEE). WTA generally required half the sample size to achieve comparable power to KM estimation; advantages over the GEE included its robust nonparametric approach and summary plot. We also applied WTA to real clinical data: the toxicity outcomes of melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy and the disease progression of patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving ramucirumab. The application of WTA demonstrated that using traditional methods such as KM estimation can lead to both type I and II errors by failing to model illness trajectory. This article outlines a novel method for clinical outcome assessment that extends the advantages of Kaplan–Meier estimates to ordinal outcome variables.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".