Joint Frailty Mixing Model for Recurrent Event Data with an Associated Terminal Event: Application to Hospital Readmission Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent events like repeated hospitalization, cancer tumour recurrences, and many others occur frequently. The follow-up on recurrent events may be stopped by a terminal event like death. It is obvious that if the frequencies of recurrent events are more, then it may lead to a terminal event and in this case terminal event becomes ‘dependent’. In this article, we study a joint modelling and analysis of recurrent events with a dependent terminal event. Here, the proportional intensity model for the recurrent events process and the proportional hazard model for the terminal event time are taken. To account for the association between recurrent events and terminal events, mixing frailty or random effect is studied rather than available pure frailty. In our case, the distribution of frailty is introduced as a mixture of folded normal distribution and gamma distribution rather than using pure gamma distribution. An estimation procedure in the joint frailty model is applied to estimate the parameters of the model. This method is close to the method of minimum chi-square rather than a complicated one. An extensive simulation study has been performed to estimate the model parameters and the performances are evaluated based on bias and MSE criteria. Further from an application point of view, the method is illustrated to a hospital readmission data for colorectal cancer patients.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".