Bibliographic record
Abstract
In time-to-event analyses, a competing risk is an event whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the event of interest. Settings with competing risks occur frequently in clinical research. Missing data, which is a common problem in research, occurs when the value of a variable is recorded for some, but not all, records in the dataset. Multiple Imputation (MI) is a popular method to address the presence of missing data. MI uses an imputation model to generate M (M > 1) values for each variable that is missing, resulting in the creation of M complete datasets. A popular algorithm for imputing missing data is multivariate imputation using chained equations (MICE). We used a complex simulation design with covariates and missing data patterns reflective of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to compare three strategies for imputing missing predictor variables when the analysis model is a cause-specific hazard when there were three different event types. We compared two MICE-based strategies that differed according to which cause-specific cumulative hazard functions were included in the imputation models (the three cause-specific cumulative hazard functions vs. only the cause-specific cumulative hazard function for the primary outcome) with the use of the substantive model compatible fully conditional specification (SMCFCS) algorithm. While no strategy had consistently superior performance compared to the other strategies, SMCFCS may be the preferred strategy. We illustrated the application of the strategies using a case study of patients hospitalized with AMI. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00180-024-01518-w.
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 | 0.076 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.008 |
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".