MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977130183 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.18585810

Additional file 1 of Graphical calibration curves and the integrated calibration index (ICI) for competing risk models

2022· article· en· W6977130183 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSocial and Demographic Issues in Germany
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)CalibrationMaximum likelihoodMonte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1. Figure S1. RCS: Choice of number of knots (p = 0.25). Figure S2. RCS: Choice of number of knots (p = 0.75). Figure S3. ICI/E50/E90 in simulations for selecting the optimal number of knots (p = 0.25). Figure S4. ICI/E50/E90 in simulations for selecting the optimal number of knots (p = 0.75). Figure S5. Effect of degree of censoring on estimated calibration curves (N = 2000 and p = 0.25). Figure S6. Effect of degree of censoring on estimated calibration curves (N = 2000 and p = 0.75). Figure S7. ICI/E90/E90 for correctly−specified model and censoring (N = 2000 and p = 0.25). Figure S8. ICI/E90/E90 for correctly−specified model and censoring (N = 2000 and p = 0.75). Figure S9. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.25). Figure S10. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.50). Figure S11. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.75). Figure S12. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 0.50 & p = 0.25). Figure S13. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 0.50 & p = 0.75). Figure S14. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.25). Figure S15. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.50). Figure S16. True model fitted with no censoring (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.75). Figure S17. ICI/E90/E90 for correctly−specified model without censoring (p = 0.25). Figure S18. ICI/E90/E90 for correctly−specified model without censoring (p = 0.75). Figure S19. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.25). Figure S20. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.50). Figure S21. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 0.25 & p = 0.75). Figure S22. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 0.50 & p = 0.25). Figure S23. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 0.50 & p = 0.75). Figure S24. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.25). Figure S25. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.50). Figure S26. Mis−specified model (beta1 = 1 & p = 0.75). Figure S27. ICI/E90/E90 for incorrectly−specified model (p = 0.25). Figure S28. ICI/E90/E90 for incorrectly−specified model (p = 0.75). Figure S29. Mis−specified model (omission of main effect) (rho=0.25). Figure S30. Mis−specified model (omission of main effect) (rho=0.50). Figure S31. Mis−specified model (omission of main effect) (rho=0.75). :R code for constructing calibration curves and numerical metrics of calibration using restricted cubic splines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8650.202

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSocial and Demographic Issues in GermanyFrench-language works237,207