Density ratio model for multiple types of survival data with empirical likelihood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The density ratio model (DRM) is a semiparametric model that relates the distributions from multiple samples to a nonparametrically defined reference distribution via exponential tilting, with finite-dimensional parameters governing their differences in shape. When multiple types of partially observed (censored/truncated) failure time data are collected in an observational study, the DRM can be utilized to conduct a single unified analysis of the combined data. In this paper, we extend the methodology for censored length-biased/truncated data to the DRM framework and formulate the inference using empirical likelihood. We develop an EM algorithm to compute the DRM-based maximum empirical likelihood estimators of the model parameters and survival function, and assess its performance through extensive simulations under correct model specification, overspecification, and misspecification, across a range of failure-time distributions and censoring proportions. We also illustrate the efficacy of our method by analyzing the duration of time spent from admission to discharge in a Montreal-area hospital in Canada. The R code that implements our method is available on GitHub at \href{https://github.com/gozhang/DRM-combined-survival}{DRM-combined-survival}.
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 | 0.038 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".