MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414911999 · doi:10.1080/02664763.2025.2567987

Joint survival and longitudinal modelling for combined cohort data

2025· article· en· W4414911999 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJoint (building)CohortLongitudinal dataSurvival analysisCohort studyProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A primary goal of survival analysis is modelling the time from an initial event to a failure event and the factors which affect the hazard rate. In various applications, the observed data can consist of a combination of right-censored failure times and left-truncated right-censored failure times by merging the data collected from incident and prevalent cohort studies with follow-up, respectively. Furthermore, in addition to the observed failure/censoring times, the survival data typically includes time-invariant covariates as well as longitudinal measurements collected throughout the failure/censoring time durations. We introduce three novel estimation methods for a joint proportional hazards and longitudinal model where incident and prevalent cohort data are combined. Using simulated data, we compare the performance of the combined cohort estimation procedures and use these techniques to model the relationship between the mortality of mature female baboons based on their longitudinally measured glucocorticoid hormone levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.152 · 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