Time-dependent prognostic accuracy measures for recurrent event data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many clinical contexts, the event of interest could occur multiple times for the same patient. Considerable advancement has been made on developing recurrent event models based on or that use biomarker information. However, less attention has been given to evaluating the prognostic accuracy of a biomarker or a composite score obtained from a fitted recurrent event-rate model. In this manuscript, we propose novel measures to characterize the prognostic accuracy of a marker measured at baseline in the presence of recurrent events. The proposed estimators are based on a semiparametric frailty model that accounts for the informativeness of a marker and unobserved heterogeneity among patients with respect to the rate of event occurrence. We investigate the asymptotic properties of the proposed accuracy estimators and demonstrate these estimators' finite sample performance through simulation studies. The proposed estimators have minimal bias and appropriate coverage. The estimators are applied to evaluate the performance of a baseline forced expiratory volume, a measure of lung capacity, for repeated episodes of pulmonary exacerbations in patients with cystic fibrosis.
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 | 0.036 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".