An empirical comparison between gradient boosting methods and cox’s proportional hazards model for right-censored survival data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gradient boosting methods become popular in recent years to analyze right-censored survival data where Cox’s proportional hazards model is the widely used statistical model. However, there are very limited studies on the differences between the two approaches for right-censored survival data. We compare two boosting methods with Cox’s proportional hazards model in this paper: one is the gradient boosting decision tree and the other is gradient boosting with component-wise linear models. The differences between the two boosting methods are presented. A simulation study is conducted to investigate the performance of the three methods in practice where only the main effects of covariates are included. The results show that the boosting methods outperform Cox’s proportional hazards model in both the relative and absolute risk estimation in the proportional hazards model except when Cox’s proportional hazards model is fully specified with nonlinear and interaction covariates effects. It indicates that the boosting methods, particularly the gradient boosting decision tree, is a very competitive method for right-censored survival data if complicated covariate effects may exist but are unknown to the investigator. We illustrate an application of the boosting methods with real data analysis.
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 | 0.042 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".