MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397013935 · doi:10.1080/02664763.2024.2355551

Z-residual diagnostic tool for assessing covariate functional form in shared frailty models

2024· article· en· W4397013935 on OpenAlexafffund
Tingxuan Wu, Longhai Li, Cindy Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovariateResidualComputer scienceData miningStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival analysis often involves modeling hazard functions while considering frailty to account for unobserved cluster-level factors in clustered survival data. Shared frailty models have gained popularity for this purpose, but assessing covariate functional form in these models presents unique challenges. Martingale and deviance residuals are commonly used for visually assessing covariate functional form against continuous covariates. Nevertheless, their subjective nature and lack of a reference distribution make it challenging to derive numerical statistical tests from these residuals. To address these limitations, we propose 'Z-residuals', a novel diagnostic tool designed for shared frailty models, leveraging the concept of randomized survival probability and introducing both graphical and numerical tests. To implement this approach, we develop an R package to compute Z-residuals for shared frailty models. Through extensive simulation studies, we demonstrate the high power of our derived numerical test for assessing the functional form of covariates. To validate the effectiveness of our method, we apply it to a real data application concerning the modelling of survival time for acute myeloid leukemia patients. Our Z-residual diagnosis results reveal the inadequacy of log-transformation of the covariate, highlighting the limitations of other diagnostic methods for effectively assessing covariate functional form in shared frailty models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207