Graphical methods to illustrate the nature of the relation between a continuous variable and the outcome when using restricted cubic splines with a Cox proportional hazards model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restricted cubic splines (RCS) allow analysts to model nonlinear relations between continuous covariates and the outcome in a regression model. When using RCS with the Cox proportional hazards model, there is no longer a single hazard ratio for the continuous variable. Instead, the hazard ratio depends on the values of the covariate for the two individuals being compared. Thus, using age as an example, when one assumes a linear relation between age and the log-hazard of the outcome there is a single hazard ratio comparing any two individuals whose age differs by 1 year. However, when allowing for a nonlinear relation between age and the log-hazard of the outcome, the hazard ratio comparing the hazard of the outcome between a 31- and a 30-year-old may differ from the hazard ratio comparing the hazard of the outcome between an 81- and an 80-year-old. We describe four methods to describe graphically the relation between a continuous variable and the outcome when using RCS with a Cox model. These graphical methods are based on plots of relative hazard ratios, cumulative incidence, hazards, and cumulative hazards against the continuous variable. Using a case study of patients presenting to hospital with heart failure and a series of mathematical derivations, we illustrate that the four methods will produce qualitatively similar conclusions about the nature of the relation between a continuous variable and the outcome. Use of these methods will allow for an intuitive communication of the nature of the relation between the variable and the outcome.
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 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 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".