Estimands and Cumulative Incidence Function Regression in Clinical Trials: Some New Results on Interpretability and Robustness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regression analyses based on transformations of cumulative incidence functions are often adopted when modeling and testing for treatment effects in clinical trial settings involving competing and semi-competing risks. Common frameworks include the Fine-Gray model and models based on direct binomial regression. Using large sample theory we derive the limiting values of treatment effect estimators based on such models when the data are generated according to multiplicative intensity-based models, and show that the estimand is sensitive to several process features. The rejection rates of hypothesis tests based on cumulative incidence function regression models are also examined for null hypotheses of different types, based on which a robustness property is established. In such settings supportive secondary analyses of treatment effects are essential to ensure a full understanding of the nature of treatment effects. An application to a palliative study of individuals with breast cancer metastatic to bone is provided for illustration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it